Bridgewater Centre

The Bridgewater Care and Assessment Centre was a government-run children’s facility, located on an 11 acre site at 55 Duncraig Road, Applecross. Operating from January 1969, it officially opened on 5 February 1969 before closing as a residential children’s centre in 1983. It formed part of Western Australia’s child welfare system and was created as a modern alternative to earlier government “receiving” or reception homes, which by the 1960s were increasingly seen as outdated, overly institutional and poorly suited to understanding children’s individual needs.

 

Prior to Bridgewater being established, Perth’s main reception centre was a government receiving home at Walcott Street in Mount Lawley, often referred to as the Walcott Centre. It focused on intake and protection, rather than intensive assessment. Bridgewater was deliberately designed to replace this approach with one that prioritised short stays, professional evaluation and forward planning, rather than leaving children in limbo. It was never intended to be a long-term children’s home, nor was it a juvenile justice facility. Children placed there were not “delinquents” or offenders but as welfare cases who required protection, care or temporary removal from unsafe environments.

 

A core function of Bridgewater was pre-placement assessment. Upon admission of children between the ages of 3 and 18 years, each child’s circumstances, physical health, emotional wellbeing and behaviour were evaluated by a professional, multidisciplinary team. This could include social workers, child welfare officers and psychologists, with psychiatrists consulted where required. The assessment period was critical in determining what should happen next, with outcomes including returning a child to their family if it was considered safe, placement in foster care, transfer to a group home or referral to a more specialised institution.

 

This meant that Bridgewater acted as a gateway into the care system, where case plans were formulated rather than decisions being rushed or made blindly.

 

Bridgewater also functioned as a temporary shelter (for approximately half the children), providing short-term emergency and respite accommodation for children who could not remain at home or whose existing placements had broken down. Stays were intended to be brief, usually weeks or a few months, while longer-term solutions were decided. The centre played an important role in quickly removing children from unsafe situations or when families were experiencing crises that made returning home undesirable.

 

The large riverside property was laid out like a cottage-style campus, instead of a single institutional building. At its peak, Bridgewater consisted of up to eight residential cottages, an administration and assessment building, play areas and a kindergarten. The cottage model meant children lived in small groups rather than dormitories, with each cottage operating like a household. Siblings were generally kept together and children of mixed ages lived side by side where appropriate. Each cottage had its own kitchen, living spaces, bathroom and bedrooms, designed to replicate a normal home rather than an institutional.

 

Daily structured routines at Bridgewater was intended to make the child feel as close to normal family life as possible. Mornings involved getting ready for school or on-site activities, eating breakfast together and completing simple chores such as making beds or tidying shared spaces. School attendance was strongly encouraged and where possible, children continued attending their original schools, often travelling by bus or being driven, so their education was minimally disrupted. Younger children yet to attend school went to the on-site kindergarten, which was also used by local Applecross children, helping to normalise the experience and reduce isolation.

 

Meals were prepared within each cottage, with children helping, according to age and ability. Staff ensured regular mealtimes, basic nutrition, hygiene and routines. Children were taught everyday life skills such as dressing appropriately, looking after their belongings and keeping shared spaces clean. After school, afternoons typically involved homework, supervised play and organised activities. Bridgewater featured a sports oval, playing courts, an adventure playground (p.19) and a playroom. Staff would occasionally organise arts and crafts activities, games and sports, both for recreation and as a means to observe children’s social behaviour as part of the assessment process. Older teenagers were given more independence but were still expected to follow rules and curfews.

 

After dinner, evenings were spent watching TV as a group, reading or quiet activities. Throughout the day, staff maintained records and logs noting behaviour, emotional state, progress and any concerns, feeding into ongoing assessments and case planning.

 

Care and discipline at Bridgewater were intended to be non-punitive. The centre was not meant to operate like earlier orphanages or reformatories, with discipline focusing on guidance rather than punishment. Minor misbehaviour might result in loss of privileges or additional chores rather than physical punishment. However, survivor accounts indicate that the quality of care varied significantly. Some staff were compassionate and supportive, while others were harsh, inconsistent or ill-equipped to deal with traumatised children.

 

Basic medical care was provided through visiting doctors or nurses, particularly as many children arrived with untreated health issues.

 

Management of Bridgewater was overseen by a Superintendent or Officer-in-Charge, usually a senior welfare officer responsible for admissions, staff supervision, assessments and liaison with departmental headquarters. Supporting this role was a multidisciplinary assessment team, sometimes referred to as the “professional team”, which conducted interviews, psychological testing and play-based assessments. They would also meet to determine recommendations for each child’s future care.

 

Day-to-day life in the cottages was managed by residential carers known as house parents. In the early years this often involved live-in or day-shift carers, while later decades relied more on rostered child care workers. These staff cooked meals, supervised routines, transported children to school, provided emotional support and reported observations back to the assessment team. Training standards varied and while some staff held formal qualifications, others learned on the job during a time when the impacts of trauma were not yet fully recognised.

 

In later years, additional specialist staff or consultants were involved in therapeutic programs, particularly those linked to family reunification. Like any residential facility, Bridgewater also relied on support staff such as cleaners, maintenance workers and administrative assistants, although much of the regular upkeep was part of cottage life.

 

Bridgewater’s role evolved over time. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, it increasingly incorporated therapeutic services for children who had experienced abuse or trauma, working alongside child protection authorities. During its final phase between 1982 and 1983, the centre shifted more towards permanency planning, hosting supervised live-in arrangements for families being reunited and for prospective adoptive parents bonding with children prior to adoption. These programs were considered innovative at the time and were intended to improve long-term outcomes by carefully managing transitions, rather than suddenly moving children between placements.

 

As part of this evolving approach, Bridgewater also operated an annexe known as Oceanview, which opened in 1976. Oceanview catered specifically to teenage children after their initial assessment, to provide more of an age-appropriate environment for adolescents, particularly those still attending school. It operated until the early 1980s as an extension of Bridgewater’s short-term care model, recognising that teenagers had different needs to younger children.

 

Despite its intentions and forward-thinking, Bridgewater later became associated with serious failures. Many former residents have described emotional neglect, physical abuse and sexual abuse, whether perpetrated by staff, other children or enabled by inadequate supervision that failed to prioritise children’s safety. Some survivors reported being ignored or disbelieved when they spoke up. One particularly distressing account involved a teenage girl placed at Bridgewater after disclosing sexual abuse by her stepfather, who was forced to attend unsupervised contact with him. Her distress led her to repeatedly run away. On one occasion, she was sexually assaulted by strangers. A traumatic example of how procedural decision-making could override a child’s voice, with devastating consequences.

 

Bridgewater ceased operating as a children’s residential facility in 1983, as government policy shifted away from institutional care in favour of foster care and community-based alternatives. In January 1984, a new system was implemented as the Community Support Hostels with Bridgewater becoming the Administration Centre.

 

The cottages and associated buildings were demolished in the late 1980s, allowing the land to be subdivided into multiple residential lots. Today, the former site is a housing estate, with no visible trace of the institution that once stood there.