In February 2021, a four-year-old Indigenous boy named Adam was removed from his kindergarten classroom in South Hedland, Western Australia, by the Department of Child Protection (DCP) and placed into the care of his mother, who has a documented history of methamphetamine addiction and drug dealing. Adam’s grandparents, who have been his primary carers since his birth and reside in the remote Jinparringa community near South Hedland, were informed of the removal via a brief text message sent less than an hour before they were due to collect him from school.
The message, sent by the South Hedland District Office of the DCP, stated that Adam had been “reunified” with his mother, despite the grandparents’ objections and concerns for the child’s safety. The grandparents, identified only as JD and WD, have criticized the decision, claiming that the department ignored evidence of the mother’s ongoing substance abuse and criminal record, and disregarded the Aboriginal Placement Principle, which prioritizes placing Indigenous children with family members. They argue that Adam had never spent a night with his mother and that the sudden removal was traumatic and dangerous.
JD reported that Adam called her crying on the night he was taken, expressing a desire to return to the grandparents’ care. WD described the DCP’s actions as “devastating,” accusing the agency of failing to prioritize the child’s welfare. The grandparents have asserted that the DCP’s policy of family reunification was misapplied in this case, putting Adam at risk by placing him in an environment they say was unsafe.
Legal experts and former judges have also condemned the DCP’s handling of the situation. Retired Senior District Court judge Philip McCann described the decision as “deeply flawed” and “arbitrary,” highlighting the abruptness of the reunification and the lack of clear justification. Denis Reynolds, a former president of the Western Australia Children’s Court, reviewed case files and concluded the removal breached legislative requirements and was unlawful. He called the case indicative of broader systemic problems within the child protection framework.
The DCP maintained that the safety and wellbeing of children remain its foremost priority but declined to comment on specifics due to privacy and legal obligations. Meanwhile, Indigenous elders and community advocates have expressed frustration at what they perceive as ongoing neglect and insensitivity by child protection authorities towards Indigenous families. Kariyarra elder Pat Mason criticized the DCP’s approach, asserting that it perpetuates harm reminiscent of the Stolen Generations and undermines Indigenous family structures.
A former regional DCP director also described the notification via text message as “absolutely bad practice,” stressing that reunification processes should be carefully planned with the child’s best interests central to decisions. The director suggested that the rapid removal may have been motivated by a desire to preempt opposition from the grandparents rather than by a thorough assessment of safety.
In August 2021, magistrate Colin Kaeser ordered that Adam be returned to his grandparents’ care as legal guardians, a decision that was implemented the following day. Since then, Adam, now nine years old, has been living with his grandparents in Jinparringa, where they say he is thriving and connected to his culture. Despite this, the family remains deeply affected by the initial removal, which they describe as a painful and unnecessary upheaval.
The case has drawn attention amid wider concerns about child protection failures in the Pilbara region, where Indigenous children have been disproportionately affected by systemic issues, including neglect and inadequate agency responses. Calls for reform emphasize the need for culturally sensitive practices and stronger safeguards to prevent such incidents in the future.