Child protection.

Helping? Or harming? 

“Austerity measures have made people poorer, reduced community facilities and networks, and decimated the safety net and support available. At the same time there has been an increase of social services have increased the policing of those in need and coercive intervention into families.”

Professors Brid Featherstone, Anna Gupta, Kate Morris and Sue White
Protecting Children: A Social Model

Rights for children must be at the heart

Protecting children from harm is the justification given for intrusive state intervention into families. However the vital focus on children’s rights has been lost and there’s a worrying lack of evidence that children are actually helped by this approach. 

After over a decade of cuts to public sector and community support and services and with costs of living rising far faster than either wages or benefits more and more families in England are struggling.

Instead of providing economic and social support for families – as legally obliged to under human rights agreements – the government supports a child protection approach which polices families. The use of coercive intervention is justified – along with surveillance, widespread use of profiling and sharing of children’s information and data – to identify parents failing to provide adequately for their children or to keep them safe. Many parents find that needing help is viewed as being a risk, and that they themselves are investigated. And, as a result of both government policy and of hugely costly privatised care provision, councils have fewer resources available for help and support. Courts are increasingly left with few options other than care orders and children are being removed from their families in higher numbers than any point since the 1980s.

We know that this approach causes harm to both children and their families. 

Rights for children must be at the heart of our approach, with all rights respected. 

Individual or societal problems? 

[Very draft!] Between 2010 and 2019 an additional x number of children have been put on child protection plans. The vast majority of these are for neglect and emotional harm. 

Definition of neglect includes “a parent or carer failing to: • provide adequate food, clothing and shelter” As highlighted by Brid Featherstone in 2015 there has been huge rises in homeless families living in bed and breakfast, huge rises in families living below the Minimum Income Standard and in food banks. “whole groups of parents could be, and, indeed, some are being, judged neglectful in the current climate as evidenced by the staggering rise in referrals and removals” This is increasing. Reports of families being referred to children’s services for inability to pay electricity bills. Emotional abuse includes children “seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another” and indeed awareness of the harm of being witness to domestic abuse is fuelling child protection activities and removals of children.

Lack of evidence in support of this system

The way that England approaches keeping children safe is not the only possible approach, this policing of families is a political choice. Given the levels of intervention into children and families lives and the harm which comes from this, there is a surprising lack of evidence to show that all the monitoring, the surveillance, the intrusion and the removal of children actually prevents harm.  

Increasing investigations and false positives

“In England policies currently in place, driven by a small number of very dreadful cases of serious injury, abuse or death, strongly emphasise identifying children at risk, even in the absence of clear evidence about the benefits of the interventions available. An unintended result is a very large increase in false positives: in the number of families investigated for a child protection concern but who were not the subjects of a subsequent child protection plan.”

Professor Paul Bywaters
Exploring inequalities in child welfare and child protection services

“We established that [serious case review] findings are frequently vague and general, but inevitably slanted towards more intrusive and coercive surveillance and data sharing
without understanding of the wider impact on all cases….Creating sanctions for under-interventions but few sanctions for over-intervention is not resulting in a balanced strategy.”

Professor Lauren Divine and Dr Stephen Parker
Rethinking child protection strategy: Progress and next steps.and child protection services

Investigations harm children and families

If being investigated did not harm children and their families perhaps rising numbers might not be such a problem but the evidence shows conclusively that it is traumatic for all family members. 

The impacts are likened to PTSD, and can be significant and long lasting, taking years to recover from, if indeed individuals ever do. There are also longer term impacts as being ‘known to social services’ is stigmatising which can lead to further attention and negative treatment from agencies – which can last even into the child’s adulthood.

There is also a societal harm when families view children’s services as a danger to be avoided, rather than a source of help and support as they – of course – will not seek the help their children need.

More children removed from their families

The government is removing more children from their families than at any time since the 1980s, with numbers of care orders to remove children at more than double that of 2009 levels.

“There are some situations which are manifestly damaging to children and from which they must decisively be removed; however there are many more where the whole family unit is suffering and where the additional suffering caused by removal of the child to all members of the family.“

Brid Featherstone, Sue White, Kate Morris.
Re-imagining Child Protection: towards humane social work with families

What market analysis says

Global market intelligence agency Mintel flag budget reductions leading to cutting of preventative measures and growing numbers of children living in poverty. “The closure of early intervention support measures has meant that more vulnerable children are reaching ‘crisis’ point.” Mintel also highlighted the ‘whole-system’ reset urged by the ‘independent’ review identified as market ‘drivers’.

‘Global corporate finance house’, Clearwater International likewise identify “favourable demographics, a growing UK population exposed to risk factors”.

“…significant opportunities for investors with increasingly positive market drivers”  

Clearwater International 

Government supportive of removing children

High numbers of children being removed from families has traditionally been seen as a sign of failure. Successive Conservative ministers have made it clear that they favour removing greater numbers, which has shaped policy and outcomes for children. 

???

Removal engages children’s rights too

When the decision to remove a child is made the rights of parents are considered but it is important to remember that children’s rights are engaged too. And respecting these rights means the state acting in accordance with its obligations and providing support to families so that they can look after their children.

“In all the films we asked them about how they remember that moment of being removed, and all the kids have it seared into their memory, they always remember it like it was yesterday. The impact is so profound and lasting. So you’re always thinking, what more could we do to prevent it before it happens, and to support families and young people so they don’t have to leave.”

Paddy Wivell,
Director of documentary Kids