This article reviews initial findings from an Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute [AHURI]-funded research project examining housing outcomes among Australian young people who have been in state out-of-home care. Our findings suggest a linkage between incidents of in-care abuse and poor postcare housing outcomes among our research participants, including primary homelessness. Not attending school when leaving care was also highly associated with having experienced in-care abuse. The authors postulate that adverse in-care experiences may have contributed to poor postcare housing outcomes among the research participants; and this article raises a number of specific concerns related to neglect, abuse and assault while in care. It is also argued that support in the transition from care needs to be strengthened to mitigate poor post-care outcomes, as does accountability for in-care adversities.

The construct ‘the best interest of the child’ is embedded in child protection legislation in all Australian states and territories. This phrase or construct in its modern iteration that dates from 1973 is constantly evoked when decisions are being made about a child's future following the substantiation of a case of child abuse and neglect. The use of the best interests of the child as a standard for decision-making, even though there is no consensus in law or social science as to what the construct means, needs to be questioned. What often follows from reliance on the best interests of the child is the placement of a child in foster care or kinship care in the hope that this will produce a better outcome for the child than if they remained in parental care. No doubt this is true for some children. Recent outcomes studies of foster care point to less than promising results for many children. As a result it can be argued that placing a child in foster care is a gamble with the child's future life.

In the Report of the Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection in New South Wales, Recommendation 16.9 states: ‘Carer allowances should be reviewed periodically by an independent body and should more closely reflect the actual costs to the carer of providing care, according to the varying categories of need’ (Wood, 2008, p. 689). In 2000, estimates of the costs of foster children were developed (the Foster Care Estimates) by an ‘independent body’, the Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC). Using a budget standards approach, estimates representing the ‘basic’ subsidy were based on the costs of children not in care and adjusted to more closely reflect the day-to-day cost of fostering children in statutory care. Since 2000, the estimates have been updated annually (using the Consumer Price Index). This article examines the changes to levels of allowances for statutory foster and kinship carers in all Australian jurisdictions over the period 2000–2009. It argues that the use of the internationally recognised budget standards approach to estimate ‘actual costs to carers’ has been accepted by government and more than meets the requirements of Wood's Recommendation 16.9.

This article provides an insight into the under-explored lives of parents with mental illness. In particular, this article considers the experiences of parents with mental illness who grew up with parents who also had mental illness, or experienced issues related to violence, abuse and neglect during childhood. Due to the dearth of research in this area there is minimal insight into how parents experience mental illness and even less significance is placed on exploring how intergenerational mental illness and backgrounds of violence, abuse and neglect impact on parenthood. This qualitative study generates information about how intergenerational family mental illness, and other issues identified in the course of the study, affected the participants' experiences of being a parent.