Government-funded programmes and services for vulnerable - Unicef

Government-funded programmes and services for vulnerable children in SA
mean that the Department will be competing with the social welfare sector to meet the
demand for social workers from an already inadequate pool (Barberton 2006).
Barberton’s (2006) costing indicates that the DoJCD will see the greatest growth of all
the departments in terms of obligations it must fulfil in terms of the Children’s Act. An
analysis of DoJCD funding of the services it was obliged to provide in 2005/06 showed
an 18 per cent deficit and the prognosis was that ‘the extent of under-funding is set to
increase as the demand for normal services of the children’s court increase more rapidly
than the budgets for these courts’ (Barberton 2006: 88). What is more, the 18 per cent
deficit increases to a 61 per cent deficit if the Department’s funding is measured against
the services, over and above its current services, that will have to be provided in terms of
the Children’s Act.
It is not only funding that may prevent the realisation of many of the services that the
DoJCD is obliged to provide in terms of the Children’s Act, but also the current shortage
of suitably qualified personnel. The discussion under the obligations of the DoSD
reviewed the shortage of social workers which, combined with the shortage of magistrates,
will impact negatively on the DoJCD’s fulfilment of its responsibilities as well.
Children’s courts and social workers
There needs to be close cooperation between the DoSD and the DoJCD to ensure the
successful implementation of the Children’s Act. The Children’s Court and the social
workers must work closely together to ensure that the court-based processes move
quickly so that children in need of care and protection are not excluded from protection
by delays. At present, there is not much evidence of close cooperation and this must be
improved dramatically.
Victimisation in family courts
Domestic violence complainants are routinely subjected to secondary victimisation in
family courts. They are often turned away by the relevant magistrate’s court without being
granted an interim protection order. Magistrates often postpone the hearing of the matter
to allow for the presence of the respondent before granting the interim order and, in so
doing, subject the complainant to further risk of abuse, contrary to the intent and direction
given by the governing Domestic Violence Act (Legal Resources Centre & POWA 2009).
Protective measures for child victim witnesses
Protective measures that are available for the benefit of child victims who testify in court,
such as the use of CCTV and intermediaries, are not automatically available. Application
must be made to the court for permission for the use of these alternate procedures
and a ‘trial within a trial’ must take place to determine if the facts merit the use of the
procedures. Moreover, the court may only order the use of CCTV testimony where the
facilities are readily available or obtainable (Waterhouse 2008; section 158 of the Criminal
Procedure Act).
238