Protecting Children
Many children are at a risk of being abused, making it a debatable subject as it can be defined in different contexts with inexplicable views. The (Working Together 1999:5:2.3) publication sets out the definition of child abuse as, “Somebody may abuse or neglect a child by inflicting harm, or by failing to act to prevent harm. Children may be abused in a family or in an institutional or community setting; by those known to them or, more rarely, by a stranger”. This signifies that abuse can be classified into categories of physical, emotional, sexual abuse and neglect. All abuse result in long-term damage affecting a child’s well being; creating a negative impact on their lives as adults; while in extreme cases a child may even die if concerns are not acted upon. This essay will provide a brief overview of the historic development and the cases that have had a massive impact with regards to provision and legislation that strengthens it; in terms of existing attitudes, social policy and any other major influences, which are believed to be prevalent. It will also include the aims and objectives followed by the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) and contemplate on the Child Protection Policies of the setting where the practitioner works.
Munro (2002:p28) indicates that, “The protection of children from harm at the hands of their parents and carers occurs within a social context that shapes every stage of the process.”This proved significant as a number of prosecutions and complaints to the SNSPCC, the Children Act 1908 broadened the definition of neglect. The legislative momentum from the 1880′s up to the 1950′s including the Children and Young Persons Acts of 1932 and 1937 accentuated the free rights of the child to be safeguarded from brutality and cruelty and be protected by the state. The outcome of this approach to child protection resulted in children being taken out of their homes and rehabilitated in residential care where they were seen as troublesome and difficult. WW11 brought about the awareness of children’s conditions to the public and it was recognised that there was an absolute need for a strategic and comprehensive policy in relation to the welfare and safety of children. Abrams (1998, pg. 207) states that “Local authorities were urged to coordinate child protection services in order that all possible assistance from statutory services were made available to support families” This resulted in the implementation of the Children Act 1948 and additional importance was placed on family orientated support work during the 1950′s and 60′s.
Since then, a considerable change in services to safeguard children has evolved over the decades. Monro(2002:p38) further states that, “The quality of children’s life came under more scrutiny as it became more public in the 19th century and so, revealed the effects of poverty and deprivation.” This led to the awareness of placing emphasis on families in bringing up healthy and honest children. Ill-treatment and neglect could result in destruction, leading to death or serious problems and this gave rise to the NSPCC, based on the American pattern.
Kempe (1979:p9) indicates that, “society’s recognition of abuse to children progress over time…… by psychotic, drunken, or drugged parents or foreign visitors. This is evident from the death of Maria Colwell at the hands of her stepfather in 1970 which spotlighted the commencement of child protection procedures and an interest in the treatment of children, increasing an awareness of child abuse. Local authorities were required to establish inter-agency child protection committees and preventative social work was beginning to take form. The deaths of Jasmine Beckford, (1985), Tyra Henry, (1987) and Kimberley Carlile, (1987) and inquiries into child abuse/protection in the 1980s and 1990s brought a chain of child protection investigations, which projected child protection into the limelight.
The removal of children from their homes in Cleveland had an impact on the Children Act –1989, which for the first time gave a distinct designation of children in need. Tisdall et al(1999: p28)denotes that “Lord Clyde’s report made 194 recommendations, suggesting considerable reform in the procedures of child protection, children’s hearings and social work training.” This Act stressed upon the importance of the welfare of the child, whether living at home or under the care of the local authority. It also emphasised the importance of parental responsibility and encouraged family entity by providing a support network for families in need, and working in ‘partnership’ with the parents. According to the Children Act 1989 the child’s best interest is paramount, which implies that children should be treated as individuals, ensuring they are safe and their needs catered for. It places a duty on local authorities to work with social services acting on behalf of children in need who are afflicted from what the act calls “significant harm” which incorporates any kind of abuse or ill treatment. Enquiring into allegations of child abuse England and Wales later produced Working Together to Safeguard Children (1999), which emphasised the responsibilities of professionals towards children who are at risk of harm and strengthen requirements to work in partnership with families. Clear and rigorous guidelines were given for professional workers insisting on the configuration of assessment when undertaking an investigation and the appropriate action to be taken.
In spite this, in 1991 a similar situation occurred in Orkney, where nine children were removed from their homes because of suspected sexual abuse and other cases. The Children Act 1989 implemented in 1991 provided much needed transparency in many areas of the policy claiming that the social services were failing in many areas of management and confirmed the urgent need for change within the system. Following the Orkney Inquiry, New Child Protection Orders for emergency situations and Child Assessment Orders have been introduced. New Exclusion Order means that where it is deemed necessary to protect a child from a suspected abuser, the abuser can be excluded rather than remove the child from home and “such a provision respects the child’s right to remain with (the rest of) his or her family, rather than feeling doubly victimised – by the abuse itself and also from being separated from familiar and supportive surroundings” (Tisdall, 1996, p. 35). This means that the Children Act 1989 helped children to live at home with their loved ones rather than separate them from their parents, siblings and friends. It safeguarded children by getting rid of the perpetrator and leaving the innocent child from being victimised.
Annan (2002:p12-Cited in Storey, K. Presentation handout) points out that, “The idea of children’s rights may be a beacon guiding the way to the future-but it is also illuminating how many adults neglect their responsibilities towards children and how children are too often the victims of the ugliest and most shameful human activities.” This goes to portray that despite all the legislations to protect children, Victoria Climbie suffered brutal physical and mental harm and finally died in February 2000 at the hands of her carers. During the inquiry Lord Lamming got in touch with all those concerned in the services that Victoria came into contact with. It was found that her death was preventable on twelve separate occasions. Lamming found that services were not collaborating with each other and had problems due to staffing levels and resources and failed to deliver their statutory rights under certain acts. In a speech by Lord Lamming in January 2003 he says that “the staff involved in this work have to tread a careful line between respecting the rights of parents and acting to protect a child from harm” http://www.victoriaclimbieinquiry (Accessed 4th Dec,2007). The inquiry made 108 recommendations for change in local services, which had to be acted on promptly. The death of Victoria Climbie led to the Green Paper- Every Child Matters agenda which in turn led to the Children Bill 2004. The overall aim of the Children’s Act 2004 according to Pugh & Bernadette is to develop outcomes for children and narrow the gap between the ones that do well and those who don’t through reconfiguring services between children and families.
Looking into the new philosophy of the Children Act 2004 it can be established that ‘prevention is better than cure’ which means that to prevent abuse and neglect is to protect a child. As spotted out from the website http://www.womensaid.org.uk. (Accessed 5 January 2008) This Act intends to “maximise opportunities and minimise risks for all children and young people. It follows the consultation on the Green Paper, Every Child Matters, and also Lord Laming’s Inquiry Report into the death of Victoria Climbie. It focuses on creating clear accountability for children’s services and enabling better joint working, particularly amongst statutory agencies.” This indicates that the Act stresses on working together and prevention, which is a new way of working within child protection. It does not replace the Children Act 1989 but has been built to revise what is seen to be deficit in it. The Children Act 2004 has implemented a national database, known as the Child Protection Register (CPR). The Act sets out to amalgamate services to children so that every child can attain the 5 outcomes laid out in the Every Child Matters Green Paper; introducing the star ratings system for social services in local authorities. The new database works using a flagging system, where all children in the UK have their basic details on the database. It also ensures that social care workers are appropriately trained and qualified.
Following the Soham murder case, Sir Michael Bichard led an independent inquiry into child protection measures, record keeping, vetting and information sharing. This gave rise to securing a CRB – where an enhanced disclosure check by the police is an absolute compulsion for any adult working with children. Ofsted, the official body for inspecting schools stipulates that “The registered person complies with local child protection procedures approved by the Area Child Protection Committee and ensures that all adults working and looking after children in the setting are able to put the procedures into practice.” The Bristol Area Child Protection Guidance states that, “children might disclose concerns to staff as a good rapport of trust is built between them due to daily contact. This will enable staff to identify concerning changes of behaviour or physical injuries which can be looked into.” (The Bristol Standard Self Evaluation Framework: March 2004). This brings to mind that teachers were not officially permitted to play a significant part in the prevention of child abuse until the publication of The DHSS Working Together paper in 1988 (DfES, 1995) which instructs the education service on its responsibility in helping to protect children from abuse. It also goes further to acknowledge that teachers are in a unique position to distinguish and hence report any signs of child abuse. The school’s role is to examine and refer and keep children safe thus having a definite role to play in primary prevention.(See Appendix 1- Referral sheet from the setting). In 1999 the update of the DHSS Working Together Paper outlines the school’s role very concisely. “They can play a part in the prevention of abuse and neglect through their own policies and procedures for safeguarding children and through the curriculum” (Working Together,1999 : p14) School policies and procedures as mentioned in the Working Together Paper (DHSS, 1999) greatly assist in keeping children safe and in preventing child abuse. The setting where the practitioner works has considered this and places the highest priority to the protection and welfare of all children and states this in the Child Protection Policy. (See Appendix -2&3) Staff have completed training in Foundation Child Protection in 2006 and this training is updated regularly.
Area Child Protection Committees (ACPCs) have now been replaced by Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs). Swindon has its own Swindon Local Safeguarding Children Board- Safeguarding Swindon’s Children. The Swindon LSCB “believes that keeping children safe and young people safe is everybody’s business.” Its aim is “Working together to keep children safe in Swindon.” The LSCBs put the work of the ACPCs onto a statutory footing which is set out in the Children Act 2004 and includes local authorities, health bodies, the police and others. The objective of the LSCBs is to coordinate and to ensure the effectiveness of their member agencies in safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children being a part of an interlocking set of guidance supporting the Children Act 2004 “whilst reflecting the principles of the Rights of the Child and the European Convention on Human Rights.” (Cited in handout by Howe, A. 2007). The provision made available by the LSCB is produced through assistance issued by the Department for Education and Skills, the department of Health and the Home Office, notably Working Together to safeguard Children (2006).
In conclusion, Lindon (2003) suggests that “Protecting children from harm is the responsibility of parents and professionals working with children right through to senior managers and politicians. And this is particularly so for early childhood workers, who are working with the youngest and most vulnerable children on a daily basis.” But this was not the case with Jasmine Beckford, (1985), Tyra Henry, (1987), Kimberley Carlile, (1987) Maria Colwell (1970) and Victoria Climbie (2000) who lost their lives due to abuse, neglect and problems of inter professional communication which is a downfall on the child protection laws and legislations. Allegations of physical, emotional and sexual abuse within care homes are still surfacing. The question lies with -Do all local authorities maintain an efficient child protection procedure and sufficient support for families in need? Despite the massive overhaul of child care law, children are still suffering and dying, which is apparent that it is not entirely full proof. However, child welfare reforms are constantly being reviewed and campaigned for, coming under scrutiny in areas seen to be lacking in appropriate policy, bringing about an enormous change in child protection services. Policies and procedures are constantly implemented placing the responsibility on all professionals working with children to work collectively to safeguard children.
Lessons were not learnt from the Cleveland Inquiry and were repeated once again in the Orkney inquiry. Professionals did not consider whether the alleged abuse had taken place or not and proceeded to go ahead and remove the children from their home. Multi agencies involving social workers, the police and other agencies as appropriate did not consider looking into the Children Act 1989 which clearly states that “The welfare of the child is paramount” and this should have been the overriding consideration before making any decision. In this scenario no consideration was taken about the grief, anxiety and guilt that go with removing a child from their home as if they were objects without feelings.
Holmes G. (2007) states that, “Despite the work of the NSPCC and other organisations, roughly the same number of children are killed each year.” This is because some parents and carers might not realise the impacts of their actions and how it can have an adverse effect on a child’s life. According to Wood (2007), “In Swindon alone, there are 105 children on the child protection register.” Parliament has tried to curb the abuse and neglect of children, which led to the Children’s Charter, enabling the state to intervene for the first time in relations between parents and children. Even after the implementation of policies and legislations to protect children from all harm, there is still a lot of hindrance in the service offered to children. The interest and wishes of the child are usually ignored when carrying out an assessment by the people involved in making decisions about them, either by failing to consult or involve children in proceedings. This implies the fact that we are losing the idea, that the welfare of the child is paramount by damaging little children who will go into society emotionally and mentally disturbed.
It must be noted that these inquiries and reports have made constructive progress in helping to eliminate child abuse. However, to get it a 100% right is next to impossible as human judgement is often erratic. Finally, it can be perceived that, the aim of enquiries is not to blame, but to learn lessons which will help protect children from abuse and neglect in the future. The Government is endeavouring into promoting better welfare for young children. The Children Act 2004 makes it clear that safeguarding children is everyone’s responsibility. New laws are put in place where CRB checks make it absolutely sure, about who should and shouldn’t work with children. Abuse seems to occur irrespective of status, religion, colour or ethnic background. Legislations have evolved to help children and parents find better ‘quality’ welfare and childcare ,with the hope that there will come a time when society can provide an overall service for children, protecting them from all harm and realise the true meaning in,
‘Every Child Matters’.
References
Bross, D. , Krugman, M., Lenherr, Rosenberg, D. eds. (1988) The New Child Protection Team Handbook. New York: Garland Publishing.
Children Act 1989 (www.hmso.gov.uk accessed on 11/11/2007)
Children Act 2004 (www.hmso .gov.uk accessed on 11/11/2007)
Corby,B.(2000) Child Abuse Second Edition:Open University Press.
DHSS (1999) Working together to Safeguard Children HMSO
DfES (2003) Every Child Matters.
European Convention of Human Rights (www.hrcr.org)
Flynn,H. (2004) Protecting Children. Working together to keep children safe. Oxford: Heinemann. Handout by H.Andrea (21 .09.2007)
Handout by Wood J. (28.09.2007).
http://www.bichardinquiry.org.uk/pdf/Bichard_report.pdf. Accessed 29/12/2007.
http://www.childrens-hearings.co.uk/pdf/krcy.pdf (Accessed 10/11/2007)
http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/socialcare/safeguarding Accessed 11/11/2007)
http:www.swindonlscb.org.uk (Accessed 10/11/2007)
http://www.womensaid.org.uk. (Accessed 5 January 2008)
Hobart C. & Frankel J. (1998) Good Practice in Child Protection
Lindon J (2003) Child Protection: British Library Cataloguing.
Munro, E.(2002) Effective Child Protection: Sage Publications, London.
Presentation Handout by Woodwards B. (30.11.2007)
Presentation Handout by Storey K. (30.11.2007)
Reder,P et al (1993) Beyond Blame:Child Abuse Tragedies Revisited Rouledge.
Rights of the Child (www.unicef.org)
The Bristol Standard self evaluation Framework (March 2004)
TSO (2006) Working together to Safeguard Children: A Guide to Inter agency Working to Safeguard & Promote the Welfare of Children.
Wilson K. et al. (2007) The Child Protection Handbook
Working together 2006 :Local Safeguarding Children Boards.(find book)
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment