Thriving Kids: foundational supports for young children experiencing disability, trauma and family adversity

Submission to the House Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability

October 2025

…

Introduction

Berry Street Yooralla was established in December 2024 through the merger of two of Victoria’s largest and most experienced providers of disability and child, youth, and family supports. Together, we have over 240 years of service experience. We deliver foster care, kinship care, residential care, education programs including the Berry Street School, family violence programs, family support services, youth services, therapeutic services, and disability supports. Across these services, we supported 33,790 children, young people, and families last year.

Our disability services for children include inclusion support in early and middle years education, allied health therapy, NDIS support coordination, life skills and social supports in community hubs, and school holiday programs. We recognise children with disability as individuals with rights, capabilities, and diverse identities, and emphasise the importance of family and community in supporting them. Our expertise lies in achieving learning, independence, wellbeing, and safety outcomes for children and young people living with disability and/or who have experienced trauma and neglect.

Foundational supports for children with developmental delays or autism are essential. We therefore welcome this inquiry by the House Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability into the Thriving Kids initiative.

In Summary: Our Recommendations

Problem 1: There are barriers in access to supports for highly vulnerable children who experience co-occurring disability, trauma and family adversity.

Our recommendations:

1.1 Fund GP training and incentives for developmental, trauma-informed and culturally safe practice. 1.2 Resource alternative gateways (maternal child health, early childhood, schools, hubs) alongside GPs. 1.3 Pilot integrated intake models linking GPs with community and family services. 1.4 Ensure the intake system to Thriving Kids is adaptive and responsive to families, including those for whom large primary health or early intervention systems are often inaccessible.

Problem 2: The Australian disability and early childhood sector currently provides existing interventions and supports– but they are siloed, and accessibility can be difficult for vulnerable families.

Our recommendations:

2.1 Co-locate maternal and child health, allied health, and parenting supports in Early Childhood Hubs, with a focus on disadvantaged and marginalised communities 2.2 Ensure that vulnerable children and children with a disability can access school by creating school entry programs staffed by trauma-informed specialists 2.3 Link family violence services with disability services via regional coordination teams to ensure access to supports for high-risk families. 2.4 Ensure that intake systems to Thriving Kids support access equitably to all resources and programs available, including for those with increased barriers such as where English is a second language, parents have a disability, or family violence and other trauma is a feature of the child’s life.

Problem 3: The workforce needs specialised capability to ensure it can deliver safe, trauma-informed and effective interventions – and a repurposed NDIS workforce is not currently equipped to deliver these services, particularly for vulnerable children with intersectional needs

Our recommendations:

3.1 Develop a national, cross-sector training framework embedding trauma- and violence-informed, disability-inclusive, culturally safe and Aboriginal-led practice across child and family, education and disability services. 3.2 Ensure that regional areas build diverse and skilled workforces by creating targeted pathways and scholarships for regional and Aboriginal students into social work, psychology, allied health and education, with placement guarantees in underserved areas. 3.3 Review university curriculums in key service areas to ensure that graduates are trained in trauma-informed practice and working with people with a disability.

Problem 4: There is poor understanding in policy and practice of the intersection between disability, family violence and trauma, particularly relating to children in vulnerable settings.

Our recommendations:

4.1 Collect national prevalence data on the intersection between disability, family violence and trauma in children 4.2 Create a national reporting and outcomes model for children with disabilities, development delays or behavioural concerns in statutory care and residential care, with outcomes that inform service design 4.3 Integrated NDIS and child protection datasets to understand the intersection of disability and trauma and understand the pathways of vulnerable children

Disability, trauma and family violence overlap for many children

The question of how to optimally support young children with disability or developmental concern is a live policy topic in Australia. However, to date a focus on children with combined

lived experience of disability, trauma and family adversity has been missing from the conversation. Not all children with disability have experienced trauma and/or violence and not all children who have experienced trauma and violence have a disability. However, it is likely that the numbers of children who have experienced both are significant impacting on both them and their families.

In Australia, experiences of relational trauma are unfortunately common (Matthews et al., 2023) and over one-third of children live in families experiencing adversity (Goldfeld et al., 2018). Developmental vulnerability is rising, and this is particularly so for young children who experience adversity (AEDC, 2025). Young children are particularly vulnerable to the developmental impacts of trauma and are overrepresented at incidents of family violence and substantiated child protection reports (Phillips, 2020; AIHW, 2025).

It needs to be highlighted that for many of these children, the trauma is not just in the past but the present. This means that children are not only dealing with the developmental challenges and memories of what has occurred but are living in unsafe conditions where their focus may be on surviving not thriving.

There is a significant co-occurrence of trauma and disability, and trauma can mimic or compound childhood developmental differences (Zero to Three, 2016; Vogel, 2024). Children with disabilities are more likely to experience family violence (Octoman et al., 2022), to be placed into out of home care, and to experience further harm and poorer outcomes, including criminal justice system involvement (Baidawi et. al, 2022; AIHW, 2020).

Examples from our Family Violence services show how trauma, violence, and disability often intersect in the lives of very young children. An infant may be unable to form secure attachment because his mother, while attempting to breastfeed and attune to him, is forced to focus on avoiding the objects his father throws at her. A toddler’s development can be compromised when play is forbidden in a household where the father’s anger over mess leads to threats and punishment, leaving the child with delays in motor and language skills. By four years of age, some children learn to live in a state of constant fear, unable to separate safely from their mother and displaying behaviours—such as screaming, tantrums, or repetitive self-soothing—that can be misinterpreted as indicators of autism. Without thorough developmental and family assessments that take account of the full household environment, these children risk being misdiagnosed, their disabilities misunderstood, and critical opportunities for safety and intervention missed.

In addition to these past and present experiences of trauma and violence by the child and family, the father or other perpetrators of violence may not allow the mother and child to seek help and access services. We thereby risk excluding the most marginalised children (those with a violent parent withholding services that could support the child and support the parent using violence to rethink their parenting choices). The consequence to this is more children in out of home care, embodying narratives that locate them as the problem. Without an effective assessment that considers the patterns of behaviour of all important adults in the child’s life, we risk assuming that the strategies we have come up with will work, like telling the mother that it’s really important for her to talk with and read to the infant when she knows that doing so will put herself and the infant in serious danger.

Families dealing with the reality of trauma and violence as well as other marginalising issues such as disability, poverty and discrimination can have heightened difficulties accessing allied health services due to costs, waitlists, and/or system navigation. They may also have less opportunity to participate in mainstream early childhood education and care programs and playgroups.

We identify four problems to be addressed in design of Thriving Kids:

1. There are barriers in access to supports for highly vulnerable children who experience co-occurring disability, trauma and family adversity.
2. The Australian disability and early childhood sector currently provides existing interventions and supports– but they are siloed, and accessibility can be difficult for vulnerable families.
3. The workforce needs specialised capability to ensure it can deliver safe, trauma-informed and effective interventions – and a repurposed NDIS workforce is not currently equipped to deliver these services, particularly for vulnerable children with intersectional needs.
4. There is poor understanding in policy and practice of the intersection between disability, family violence and trauma, particularly relating to children in vulnerable settings

Our Recommendations: Avoiding gaps in support for those who need it most

Problem 1. There are barriers in access to supports for highly vulnerable children who experience co-occurring disability, trauma and family adversity.

Positioning General Practitioners as an MBS-funded gateway to Thriving Kids has clear advantages. GPs are one of the few professionals with near-universal reach, and most families interact with them in the early years for vaccinations and common health concerns. This makes them a trusted and accessible touchpoint for identifying developmental concerns and connecting families with supports. By leveraging the MBS, government can build on an existing national funding mechanism rather than creating parallel entry structures, while reducing stigma by using a familiar professional as the first point of engagement. With appropriate training and incentives, GPs could strengthen early identification and streamline referrals into foundational supports.

At the same time, care is needed to avoid risks of bottlenecks, inequities and overburdening an already stretched GP workforce. Families experiencing trauma and adversity are often less engaged with primary health care, so a sole reliance on GPs could miss the very children who most need support. The most effective approach is therefore to treat GPs as part of a broader set of gateways, alongside maternal child health nurses, early childhood services and community hubs.

To succeed, foundational supports such as Thriving Kids must operate as an integrated intake and referral system, guided by cultural safety, shared tools, and data linkage. A tiered and coordinated model—delivered through trusted entry points such as playgroups, early learning, and schools—will avoid duplication, close service gaps, and give families confidence that their child’s developmental needs will be identified and met consistently as they move from home to education.

To address these issues, we recommend:

1.1 Fund GP training and incentives for developmental, trauma-informed and culturally safe practice. 1.2 Resource alternative gateways (maternal child health, early childhood, schools, hubs) alongside GPs. 1.3 Pilot integrated intake models linking GPs with community and family services. 1.4 Ensure the intake system to Thriving Kids is adaptive and responsive to families, including those for whom large primary health or early intervention systems are often inaccessible.

Problem 2. The Australian disability and early childhood sector currently provides existing interventions and supports– but they are siloed, and accessibility can be difficult for vulnerable families.

We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. There are existing interventions and models for children and families that can be adopted or scaled as foundational supports across existing platforms. General Supports can help parents and kin build caregiving capacity; Targeted Supports could respond to higher levels of need with practical, safety and therapeutic supports for families.

Delivery should ensure more inclusive universal health and education settings, equipped to identify and respond to child and family needs; and high-quality practical, allied health and parenting place-based supports should be stacked as needed and linked across platforms (early childhood services, schools, family services, family violence services, maternal child health). Schools or early education settings may for example be linked to high quality parenting programs or family services supports and located within integrated hubs. The basic needs shared by all families would be directly addressed as part of any intervention suite, including the social determinants of health and an equity lens employed to ensure resourcing is responsive to disparities (Oberklaid et al., 2013; NOUS, 2024; Goldfeld & Harman-Smith, 2025; O’Connell, 2025; Beamish & Johnston, 2025).

Many evidence-informed programs already exist to support children’s development—such as Playconnect+, Mother Goose Playgroups, Envisage, Starting Blocks, PEDS, and Allplay Learn—but access can be uneven. Families facing barriers such as limited English, poverty, disability, or family violence often struggle to engage, and surveillance tools are not always validated for First Nations families. This can compound inequities and undermine trust. Culturally safe, community-led services such as ACCHOs, ACCOs, KESOs, and Aboriginal supported playgroups have demonstrated greater engagement and earlier identification. Embedding these approaches into mainstream platforms like MCH, ECEC, and schools—alongside bilingual playgroups, bicultural workers, and translated resources—would improve equity and ensure children from First Nations and CALD communities are not excluded.

Stacking services to be commensurate to needs may also need to directly target the legacy of trauma as a contributing or perpetuating aetiological factor for a range of developmental concerns and the disrupting impact of trauma on caregiving relationships (Ishikawa et al., 2022; Vogel 2024; van Ee & Meuleman, 2024; Lieberman et al., 2015). Children’s caregiving relationships are central for buffering the health and developmental impacts of trauma and are the key vehicle for promoting children’s socioemotional recovery and wellbeing after trauma (Lieberman et al., 2011; Webster, 2022). Stacked or stepped-care approaches for this population must therefore have capacity to integrate and extend beyond practical, safety and parenting psychoeducation or skills training where needed, to incorporate trauma-responsive

and relationally targeted approaches that enrich and rebuild caregiving relationships (e.g. Neurosequential Model of Therapeutics, Child-Parent Psychotherapy) (van Ee & Meuleman, 2024; Perry, 2013; Cox et al., 2021; Lieberman et al., 2015; Vogel, 2024).

To address these issues, we recommend pilots of at least three integrated foundational support models over the next two years:

1. Early Childhood Hubs co-locating maternal and child health, allied health, and parenting programs in disadvantaged communities.
2. Trauma-Responsive School Entry Programs embedding trauma-informed specialists in schools to support transition for children with disability and adversity.
3. Family Violence–Disability Integrated Outreach Teams linking family violence services with NDIS early childhood partners to support at-risk families.
4. All pilots should integrate stepped-care and relationally targeted approaches to address the legacy of trauma on caregiving.

Problem 3. The workforce needs specialised capability to ensure it can deliver safe, trauma-informed and effective interventions – and a repurposed NDIS workforce is not currently equipped to deliver these services, particularly for vulnerable children with intersectional needs.

Foundational supports, especially for children and families experiencing trauma and adversity, cannot be delivered by a repurposed NDIS therapy workforce. Effective implementation will require a trauma- and violence-informed, culturally safe, and family-centred workforce capability approach. A family-centred approach for all cohorts of children will be a central plank of workforce capacity building. In addition to working with families whose child has a disability or neurodivergence, this will also enable workforces to work more deliberately and effectively in partnering with parents who themselves live with disability (PRECI, 2024; NAC, 2024; Beamish & Johnston, 2025).

Other national reviews and frameworks have emphasised the need to address Aboriginal overrepresentation in child protection systems and improvements in disability and cultural safety, human rights and trauma- and violence-informed capability in child and family; and disability workforces (Commonwealth of Australia, 2023; PRECI, 2024; DSS, 2022; DFFH, 2024; Yoorrook Justice Commission, 2025; Beamish & Johnston, 2025).

To deliver Thriving Kids effectively, there needs to be a multi-layered workforce strategy: building capability in early identification, embedding cultural responsiveness, expanding allied health availability, and supporting practitioner wellbeing. Without dedicated investment in training and workforce integration, the program risks reinforcing existing inequities in access and outcomes.

To address these issues, we recommend:

3.1 Develop a national cross-sector training framework embedding trauma- and violence-informed, disability-inclusive, culturally safe and Aboriginal-led practice across child and family, education and disability services. 3.2 Establish targeted pathways and scholarships for regional and Aboriginal students into social work, psychology, allied health and education, with placement guarantees in underserved areas.

3.3 Embedding trauma and disability modules in university curricula across teaching, health and social sciences.

Problem 4. There is poor understanding in policy and practice of the intersection between disability, family violence and trauma, particularly relating to children in vulnerable settings.

Policy design needs better data about these children and families. There is a lack of prevalence data, in Australia and internationally, for populations of children experiencing disability and trauma, and the role of family adversity as a risk factor for health disparities in these children is often overlooked (Morgart et al., 2021; Didden & Mevissen, 2022; Kalisch et. al, 2024). Acquiring and publishing better data about this population will help increase their visibility within the public sphere and enable a more targeted policy response that can drive change (Goldfeld & Harmann-Smith, 2025).

For example, there is a small but highly concerning number of children under the age of 9 who are placed in statutory residential care instead of foster care or kinship care. Many of those placed in a form of care not designed for younger children are due to the system’s difficulties in caring for children with significant behavioural challenges often associated with developmental difficulties and autism. These children are not identified as a separate cohort in any systemic way.

To address these issues, we recommend:

4.1 AIHW lead a national data collection on children experiencing both disability and trauma, including prevalence and outcomes. 4.2 Annual reporting of children under 9 in statutory care with developmental or behavioural diagnoses, to inform service design. 4.3 Integration of NDIS and child protection datasets to identify overlapping cohorts and track trajectories. 4.4 Report specifically on children under 9 in residential care with developmental and behavioural challenges, as a priority cohort whose needs are currently invisible in policy and data.

Conclusion

Early intervention offers an unmatched opportunity to mitigate the disabling impacts of trauma, adversity, and family violence, and reduce reliance on high-cost service pathways (Jordan & Sketchley, 2009; Zeanah et al., 2011; Shonkoff, 2009). The NDIS has transformed lives, but foundational supports for children at the intersections of disability, trauma, and adversity represent the next step. By embedding equity, cultural safety, and trauma- and violence-informed practice into Thriving Kids, Australia can ensure its youngest and often least visible citizens are not left behind, but instead have the opportunity to thrive.

For more information

Questions about this submission can be directed to:

Terry Symonds, Chief Executive redacted

References

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2020). Australia’s children. (Cat. no. CWS 69). aihw.gov.au/getmedia/6af928d6-692e-4449-b915-cf2ca946982f/aihw-cws-69 australias children _print-report.pdf

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2025). Child protection Australia 2023-24. (Cat. no: CWS 99) hittos:/Awww.aihw.gov.au/reports/child-protection/child-protection-australia-2023-24

Baidawi, S., Ball, R., Newitt, R., Turnbull, L., Kembhavi-Tam, G., Avery, S., & Sheehan, R. (2022). Research Report — Care Criminalisation of Children with Disability in Child Protection Systems. Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability.

Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Steele, H., Zeanah, C. H., Muhamedrahimov, R. J., Vorria, P., Dobrova-Krol, N. A., et al. (2011). Attachment and emotional development in institutional care: characteristics and catch up. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 76, 62-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5834.2011.00628.x

Beamish, W., & Johnston, C. (2025). Early Childhood Intervention for Children with Disabilities and Their Families in Australia: Navigating Challenges Through Collaborative Partnerships. In Early Intervention for Young Children with Disabilities: Advancing Services and Programs Throughout Asia and the Pacific (pp. 183-208). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

Bennett, S., Jessurun, M., and Orban, H. (2025). Saving the NDIS: How to rebalance disability services to get better results. Bennett et al., 2025 Institute. Saving the NDIS: How to rebalance disability services to get better results

Bray, J. R., Baxter, J., Budinski, M., Carroll, M., & Gray, M. (2021). Evaluation of the Inclusion Support Program. Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Department of Health, Disability & Ageing (DHDA). (2025) Thriving Kids - Fact Sheet Australian Government Thriving kids — Fact sheet.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPC). (2023). NDIS Review: Working Together to Deliver the NDIS: Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Final Report. Commonwealth of Australia. Working together to deliver the NDIS. NDIS Review: Final Report

Department of Social Services. (2022). National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032. Australian Government.

Department of Social Services (DSS) (2024). Foundational Supports for Children Consultation Paper. Canberra: Australian Government: Foundational Supports for children with developmental concern, delay and or disability and their families, carers and kin Consultation Paper

Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH), 2024. Best practice supervision guidelines: Family violence, sexual assault and child wellbeing. State of Victoria, Australia. Best practice supervision guidelines: Family violence, sexual assault and child wellbeing | ViC.gov.au

Emde, R. N., & Leuzinger-Bohleber, M. (Eds.). (2014). Early parenting and prevention of disorder: Psychoanalytic research at interdisciplinary frontiers. Karnac Books.

Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, et al. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14(4):245-258. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8

Goldfeld, S., & Harman-Smith., Y. (2025, 18 June). Action needed to get children’s developmental progress back on track. The West Australian. Sharon Goldfeld and Yasmin Harman-Smith: Action needed to get children’s developmental progress back on track | The West Australian

Gavidia-Payne, S., Rossell, R., Bull, K., & Forster, J. (2024). The changing narrative of early childhood intervention in Australia: Service providers’ perspectives on the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Children and Youth Services Review, 157, 107375.

Goldfeld, S., O’Connor, M., O’Connor, E., Chong, S., Badland, H., Woolfenden, S., … & Mensah, F. (2018). More than a snapshot in time: pathways of disadvantage over childhood. International Journal of Epidemiology, 47(4), 1307-1316.

Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science, 312(5782), 1900-1902.

Harris, W. W., Lieberman, A. F., & Marans, S. (2007). In the best interests of society. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(3-4), 392-411.

Ishikawa, K., Azuma, N., & Ohka, M. (2022). Intergenerational transmission of maternal adverse childhood experiences on next generation’s development: A mini review. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 852467.

Jordan, B., & Sketchley, R. (2009). A stitch in time saves nine: Preventing and responding to the abuse and neglect of infants. Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Lyons-Ruth, K., Todd Manly, J., Von Klitzing, K., Tamminen, T., Emde, R., Fitzgerald, H., … &Watanabe, H. (2017). The worldwide burden of infant mental and emotional disorder: Report of the task force of the world association for infant mental health. Infant mental health journal, 38(6), 695-705.

Mathews et al. (2023) The prevalence of child maltreatment in Australia: findings from a national survey. Med J Aust. 218 (6).

Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (2023). Final Report. Commonwealth of Australia. Final Report | Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability

National Advocacy Collective (NAC). (2024). Supporting the rights of parents with an intellectual disability. Submission to the Department of Social Services: General Foundational Supports Consultation. National Advocacy Collective Australia. NAC Foundational-supports-submission. pdf

Nous. (2024). Exploring models of care for children experiencing development concerns. Nous Australia.

Oberklaid, F., Baird, G., Blair, M., Melhuish, E., & Hall, D. (2013). Children’s health and development: approaches to early identification and intervention. Archives of disease in childhood, 98(12), 1008-1011.

O’Connell, M. 2025, The Cost of Late Intervention 2024, The Front Project, Melbourne

Octoman, O., Hawkes, M., Lima, F., O’Donnell, M., Orr, C., Arney, F., Moore, T., Robinson, S., valentine, k., Marshall, A., Burton, J., & Brebner, C. (2022). The nature and extent of domestic and family violence exposure for children and young people with disability (Research report, 16/2022). ANROWS.

Osofsky, J. D., Stepka, P. T., & King, L. S. (2017). Treating infants and young children impacted by trauma: Interventions that promote healthy development. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000030-000

Perry, B. D. (2013). The Neurosequential Model of Infant and early childhood mental health: core concepts and clinical practice.

Phillips, B., & McGuinness, C. (2020). Child witnesses of family violence: An examination of Victoria Police family violence data. Melbourne: Crime Statistics Agency.

Professional & Researchers in Early Childhood Intervention (PRECI). (2024). Foundational Supports for young children with developmental concerns, delays or disability, and their families. PRECI Australia. PRECI Foundational supports discussion paper FINAL

Sanders, M. R., & Morawska, A. (2006). Towards a public health approach to parenting. The Psychologist. Special Issue: Nipping criminality in the bud, 19, 476–479.

Scheeringa, M. S. (2019). Development of a brief screen for symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in young children: the young child PTSD screen. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 40(2), 105-111.

Shorten, B. and Rishworth, A. (2024). Building a Strong Ecosystem of Disability Supports. Ministers for the Department of Social Services. https://ministers.dss.gov.au/media-releases/13711.

Shonkoff, J. P., Boyce, W. T., & McEwen, B. S. (2009). Neuroscience, molecular biology, and the childhood roots of health disparities: building a new framework for health promotion and disease prevention. Jama, 301(21), 2252-2259.

van Ee, E., & Meuleman, E. M. (2024). Mothers with a history of trauma and their children: a systematic review of treatment interventions. Frontiers in psychology, 15, 1293005.

Vogel, J.M. (2024). Addressing Trauma-Related Needs of Young Children with Developmental Delays and Disabilities. In: Osofsky, J.D., Fitzgerald, H.E., Keren, M., Puura, K. (eds) WAIMH Handbook of Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48631-9 22

Vervoort-Schel J, Mercera G, Wissink I, Van der Helm P, Lindauer R, Moonen X. (2021). Prevalence of and relationship between adverse childhood experiences and family context risk factors among children with intellectual disabilities and borderline intellectual functioning. Research in Developmental Disabilities, Volume 113, 2021,103935, ISSN 0891-4222, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2021.103935.

Wathen, C. N., Schmitt, B., & MacGregor, J. C. D. (2021). Measuring trauma- (and violence-) informed care: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15248380211029399. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211029399

Webster, E. M. (2022). The impact of adverse childhood experiences on health and development in young children. Global pediatric health, 9, 2333794X221078708.

Yoorrook Justice Commission. (2025). Yoorrook for Transformation: Third Interim Report. Yoorrook Justice Commission. Yoorrook for Transformation Summary Report

Zero to Three. (2016). DC:0-5™ Diagnostic classification of mental health and developmental disorders of infancy and early childhood. Zero to Three.

Zeanah, C. H., Larrieu, J. A., Heller, S. S., Valliere, J., Hinshaw-Fuselier, S., Aoki, Y., & Drilling, M. (2001). Evaluation of a preventive intervention for maltreated infants and toddlers in foster care. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(2), 214-221.