Biological siblings removed from the same traumatic family environments are not guaranteed the same help from the state's child protection system.
One sibling may benefit from state government carers' payments and services because they live under court orders with a formal kinship carer, while another sibling, who falls under an informal care arrangement, will not receive anything.
This occurs despite the siblings living with the same grandparents.
The Examiner has communicated with two grandparent families in this situation.
IN OTHER NEWS
One Northern grandmother took full-time care of a one-year-old after he was dumped on a doorstep "drenched in his mother's blood".
She later became full-time carer of two younger siblings who receive protection and financial assistance from Child Safety Services (CSS), while the oldest sibling does not.
In a statement to The Examiner the grandmother said the first baby she took into her care was subjected to cruelty, neglect and family violence.
"His father seriously assaulted his mother whilst she was holding him ... CSS officers became involved and handed me my grandson after his mother was sent to hospital for her injuries," she wrote.
To keep the baby safe and after receiving no help from Child Safety Services, the grandmother eventually sought legal custody.
When the two younger siblings were also removed from their mother, CSS approached the grandmother to ask if she would take them.
With the first child in school, the second a toddler, and the youngest still a baby on breast milk, the single grandmother agreed, putting her future career hopes and the dream of owning her own home on hold indefinitely.
When she asked CSS for all three children to receive the same formal, legal care and financial assistance of the state, CSS refused.
"In relation to [Children B and C] Child Safety assessed that they were not safe in the care of their mother and sought formal child protection orders to ensure their safety," it wrote in a statement.
"On the basis that [Child A's] placement with you was a family arrangement and voluntary, Child Safety are not responsible for the financial needs of [A].
It is the same situation for a southern Tasmanian family who cares for four sibling grandchildren.
The one-income family receives state assistance for the first three children, and no help for the youngest, who has high needs.
The informal arrangement of the last child forced the family into the family courts to gain legal protection for him.
It lasted three years and cost thousands of dollars.
"I had to give up my job, and that was financially difficult enough, but then heading into a family law court proceeding without a job was hard," the matriarch said.
"We have basically given up any hope of any decent retirement ... and it is not a 'poor me' thing here, because we are blessed, we are really lucky, we are a half-full type of family, but everything goes to the kids and we know those opportunities for a comfortable retirement are gone."