Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures are integrated into child protection and out-of-home care (OOHC) systems via the connection element of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle (ATSICPP). This article focuses on cultural connection in Australian child protection and OOHC systems over time, from its inception to its contemporary use to improve health and wellbeing and ameliorate cultural disconnection. An expanded understanding of cultural connection in Australian OOHC systems is articulated where cultural connection is theorised as a process of culturally connecting, while a critical position concerning the risk of cultural disconnection in OOHC is held. Indigenous cultures are fundamental to individual and community health and wellbeing. However, cultural connection in Australian OOHC systems risks becoming a site of bureaucratic policy compliance to ameliorate the effects of cultural disconnection produced by disproportionate First Nations child removals. This article illuminates this critical position while theorising how culturally connecting can be better understood in OOHC. IMPLICATIONS

Kinship for First Nations people is a fundamental, yet complex, element of one's culture, enabling both belonging and relationality, and extending beyond blood family and relations. Kinship is also recognized as important within out‐of‐home care (OOHC) systems, with kinship care being the predominant OOHC placement type in Australia (AIHW, 2021). However, when First Nations children and young people are removed by the state, and placed into OOHC, it is important to interrogate whether kinship placements enable cultural connection and continuity with First Nations ways of understanding Kinship. This article begins by contextualising current OOHC policy and practice in Australia where a westernised and homogenised concept of kinship care is touted as similar to First Nations notions of Kinship. Here, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle (ATSICPP) has become oversimplified by equating kinship care with relative care, thus creating ambiguity in care and placements in OOHC, voiding First Nations traditions and ways of understanding Kinship while a young person is in care. This article then reports the findings of qualitative interviews with 37 First Nations and non‐Indigenous people concerning the use of the term ‘Kinship’ in OOHC in New South Wales (NSW), how it is operationalised and how it is understood. Wide‐ranging experiences by participants concerning Kinship within OOHC were evident, thus demonstrating the imperative for a broader understanding of Kinship. This understanding needs to be applied within OOHC in ways that are consistent with First Nations notions of Kinship, as kinship care placements on their own are not enough to keep children connected in culture. The findings from this study show that the term Kinship is applied problematically within OOHC in NSW by equating legal and policy definitions of kinship care with Aboriginal ways of understanding Kinship. Ensuring First Nations traditions, practices and notions of Kinship are applied for First Nations children and young people in OOHC contexts is paramount.

Interactions between First Nations and non-Indigenous Australians have long been shaped by notions of Western authority and First Nations inferiority, both culturally and biologically. From invasion to the present day, forced removals and intergenerational trauma have deeply affected First Nations Australians, particularly through the operations of interacting colonial systems, including child removals and placements. Throughout the 20th century, systematic child removals led to the Stolen Generations, a tragic example of power imbalances, paternalism, and Western ideals, perpetuating trauma across generations. This article examines the context of First Nations removals by the state under the lies of benevolence, exposing the evolution of the colonial system and the systematic dislocation of culture and identity. It highlights the social, legal, and political factors that enabled removal practices and their enduring consequences, including the legacy of forced child separations and cultural erasure. This article argues that policies of absorption and assimilation served to further isolate children from their families, communities, and kinship networks. In doing so, it contends that the systematic disruption of First Nations communities is part of an ongoing process of subjugation, continuing the colonial agenda of cultural and familial disintegration.

Child protection systems in Australia have been criticised for racialized policies that result in the over‐policing of First Nations families and the removal of First Nations children. Under current colonial structures, “protection from harm” is used to justify the removal of First Nations children from community—sometimes permanently—at the expense of culture under the justification of timely decision making to achieve “permanency.” This is inconsistent with First Nations worldviews and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It also contributes to the sustained and increasing over‐representation of First Nations children in child protection and Out‐of‐Home Care (OOHC) systems in all Australian states and territories. Drawing on interviews with 32 First Nations and 5 non‐indigenous people in the state of New South Wales, Australia, this paper explores participants' perceptions of the purpose of placements in statutory OOHC for First Nations children. The findings highlight issues at the systemic, policy and practice levels that result in permanency being equated with disconnection from family and culture, at the expense of restoration. A lack of consultation with community and an inability to participate in decision‐making has led to the continuation of colonial policies that prioritise safety through removal and disconnection. We discuss how these policy changes neglect community advice, and entrench the view that “permanency” is best achieved via permanent care away from family and community. We conclude by discussing the importance of genuine self‐determination for the wellbeing of First Nations children, families, and culture.