A new study by the University of York has just begun, to look at outcomes for maltreated children by examining whether such children are better served in care or at home. It’s a very important study, as much research already shows that children in care suffer worse outcomes than those who stay at home. It is also the first of its kind – the researchers are going to try to collect more complex data so that they can fine-tune the current view.
The focus will be on children with similar backgrounds and histories, the only difference being some children will have been supported at home, while others will have been taken into care.
The most poignant issue to be addressed is whether children in care fare worse because of the abuse they experienced prior to being placed in the care system, or whether the care system is responsible. We imagine the answer will be both, depending on the child, the circumstances and the care homes themselves. But we also think there should be a heavy lean in the data suggesting that the care system as it stands doesn’t really offer care at all, and has a lot to answer for.
The website for this study tells us that three key questions remain unanswered. These are:
- Does being in care compensate children for previous disadvantage and improve their wellbeing, from a frequently low starting point?
- Or does it instead compound the disadvantages they bring with them into care?
- In other words, do children who enter care do better or worse than children with similar backgrounds and histories who remain at home?
We are told the aims are:
- To investigate whether outcomes for children admitted to care due to concerns about maltreatment (care group) are better or worse than for maltreated children who remain at home and are the subject of a Child Protection Plan (CPP) (home group).
- To investigate the key moderators and mediators of outcomes for maltreated children who enter care (before the age of six years) and similar children supported at home:
- which risk and protective factors predict recorded maltreatment, admission to care and developmental outcomes for maltreated children?
- To investigate what is associated with better or worse outcomes within a population of children with care experience:
- for which children, in which circumstances, does care promote positive outcomes, compensating for previous disadvantage?
- for which children, in which circumstances, does care compound the effects of abuse, neglect and other adversities experienced before they become looked after?
- To inform policy-makers and practitioners of the circumstances in which support at home, or entry to care, can best promote the safety and development of maltreated children.
- To explore, decision-making regarding admission to care for maltreated children compared to the support provided to families to support decisions that children should remain at home.
The study hopes to shed light on the successes or failures of the care system, evidence which might suggest children are better off being supported at home and key messages for professionals in the sector about caring for these children.
The project runs from this month (April), through to March 2016.
We will be very interested to read the findings.
Hat tip to Carter Brown for tweeting this story earlier.
Researching Reform 
I wonderif if this will really only look at ‘results’ and fail to grasp ‘outcomes’ – the latter being measured assessments 5, 10 and even 15 years after the incident ?
LikeLike
More meetings and there will be hundreds more all “In a child’s best interest” I will say again no one can sit in an office or meetings and debate the lifes of children again I will say the truth is with the nation poor little kids who have done no harm no one listens to them they are all from day one surrounded by an army in actuel fact the biggest army in dear old UK are the social workers most are not married or not a grandparent all the social do is work 9-5 with lots of over time, kids need a one to one full time with love and hugs, and no one knows better of the poor little kids than I do, every homeless person I have worked with all from the care refer to the ARMY of SW court experts and Doctors as the do-gooders and the kids and adults from care do and will not open up because if they did they are put down as liers we only have to know of the cover ups of the Paedophiles and 1.000s of kids sexually abused no one beleives them, I have met and homed 100s of kids from care who were so clevor but no one cared every homless kid or adult I have been with we have hugs, and I did not care that at the end of the day I had to go to the local baths to be deloused before i could go home to my own son, but the do-gooders would never hug some one from care or even do their studies from the ground level, my god the army in the streets talking and hugging and learning the truth of what the system “In a child’s best interest” has sent to hell, no the army sit in their warm offices or booked into hotels at the tax payers expence and get huge amounts of money, I dont care how many meetings they all have what do they know of truth NOTHING and they will all come up with more ideas on how to help kids and adults then get paid and go home to love warmth and their families, sending our kids to hell the army need to do their research from the ground level, perhaps they should look at one of my recent videos dancing in the streets with the homeless and listen to a lady who said I love you guys because you care, you care, you care and here lies the truth not in meetings, wish I could put all of the do-gooders on the card board boxes as their homes and beg for food then they will know how to change the system “In a child’s best interest” poor little kids, wonder what the do-gooders would say regarding a little boy in foster care who lives in the foster carers garden shed he has his toys TV a fire and thats it, he goes into the house only to sleep eat the do-gooders who only learnt from books will say the child has mentle problems lets prescibe drugs and therapy and then they will ban him from where he feels safe. At the age of 10 he was told when you are 18 we will put you in accomadation of your own when the do-gooders know dam well this child has a loving family who want him home. The armies in a childs life need to work with the families and to support and listen to the kids, it is well known many kids from care 49% sent to prison 1,000s in detention centres and psychiatric hospitals what a sad bloody country this dear old Blighty is to live in, it has always amazed me how people from other countries wants to live in the UK the truth is with the Nation I say again to all “In a child’s best interest” get of your rear and go to the streets and learn the truth then help the kids.
MAGGIE TUTTLE
LikeLike
Hi Maggie, I agree with you, competence is one of the main issues.
LikeLike
RMES (roll my eyes skywards), isn’t this just a little bit too late – like 30 years too late ? You can read about this in Patricia Morgan research boks and papers from the IEA. The literature is vast on this sunject. Hell, even I have written about the connections in positon papers for Gov’t Depts since the 1990s. Why do people persist in re-inventing the wheel ?
LikeLike
I agree with you. Why do they keep reinventing the wheel? The exact same research came out on the front page of USA Today in 2007. In an article, “Troubled homes better than foster care!” The NCCPR has the actual research papers on their website, perhaps we should send the UK researchers a copy! The evidence is in, children are better off left at home than taken into care! Not only that but ironically not much, if any, social worker intervention was needed! No wonder they want to do the research again, it doesn’t agree with the government stance! By the way, who is funding the UKs research?
LikeLike
NCCPR long has argued that many children now trapped in foster care would be far better off if they had remained with their own families and those families had been given the right kinds of help.
Turns out that’s not quite right.
In fact, many children now trapped in foster care would be far better off if they remained with their own families even if those families got only the typical help (which tends to be little help, wrong help, or no help) commonly offered by child welfare agencies.
That’s the message from the largest studies ever undertaken to compare the impact on children of foster care versus keeping comparably maltreated children with their own families. The study was the subject of a front-page story in USA Today.
——————————————————————————————————————-State of DENIAL. Why Rhode Island’s child welfare system is so dismal –
and how to make it better.
http://www.searchnccpr.blogspot.co.uk/
There are so many parallels!
“One study of foster care
“alumni” found they had twice
the rate of post-traumatic
stress disorder of Gulf War
veterans and only 20 percent
could be said to be “doing
well.” How can throwing
children into a system which
churns out walking wounded
four times out of five be
“erring on the side of the
child?”
“The reasoning of the
foster care-industrial complex
is circular, and it is cruel:
Deny families the support they
need to make a placement
work, then justify your
institutions enormously expensive
existence on
grounds that the children
couldn’t stay in families.”
“Sadly, there is a certain
element within the child
welfare industry that tends to
look upon kids in the way that,
say, Colonel Sanders looks
upon chickens.”
–Dr. Ronald Davidson
“The arrogance of the organization
is summed up in its
name — “Children’s Rights” –
as though the one thing
children crave most is the
“right” to be taken from everyone
they know and love”.
“The 10th floor apartment
in Hawaii where President
Obama was raised by his
grandmother probably would
not have qualified under the
page after page of
hyper technical requirements
any foster parent, including a
relative, must meet before
becoming licensed or certified
in Rhode Island”.
“Because grandparents
bring an extra ingredient to
the mix – love – it should
surprise no one that kinship
care generally is safer than
stranger care”.
This was particularly penitent!
“It’s all summed up in one pernicious
little smear: “The apple doesn’t fall far from
the tree.” If mom is abusive, it is claimed, it
must be because grandma has failed in some
way.
For starters, this assumes that if mom
is doing a poor job raising the children it has
to be grandma’s fault. In fact, there are any
number of times when a grandparent may
raise four children under circumstances of
poverty and need that many of us can’t possibly
imagine, and have three of them become
happy, healthy productive adults. The
fourth is lost to the lure of the streets. When
that grandmother then comes forward, at a
time when finally she should be able to rest,
and offers to take care of that child’s children,
she should be treated as a hero, not a
suspect.
And, as one of the nation’s leading
experts on kinship care has said: “a tree has
more than one branch.”
“The group that so
arrogantly calls itself “Children‟
s Rights” doesn’t know
much about either children or
rights. Because if you ask
almost any child who is old
enough, he’ll tell you himself:
If mom and dad can’t take
care of me, I have a right to
be raised by grandma and
grandpa”.
“All those gains for children by being kept in their own homes or
placed with relatives instead of strangers or kept out of institutions have
been accomplished with no compromise of safety”.
Maine’s new governor, John Baldacci threw out Concannon and his cronies, and brought in bold new leadership and changed policies and the transformation has been stunning. The change didn’t come easily. The state’s “foster care-industrial complex” its powerful network of private providers of “congregate care” spread scare stories and false rumors. But the media and the public refused to buy the snake oil the foster-care industrial complex was selling.
Natasha, It was hard not to take all the sound bites from the article as they were all so relevant despite being “over the pond!”
LikeLike
Bowlby wrote in the 1950s that for chjildren a ‘poor’ (ie not ideal), home was better than no home. We have lost sight of this truism since then and of a). the “good enough” parent and the ‘bad parent’ who is bad because they know no better. We don’l put any effort into eduicating young people to take on the role of parenthood assuming they will absorb it from their parents. The education system has been ‘modernised’ and some critical things, I suggest, have been dreadfully omitted.
LikeLike
Extract from a far more detailed and explanatory Paper on Maternal Attachment and Deprivation – 2009
“The historiography on Bowlby’s ideas has rapidly increased in the past two decades, alongside the ever-growing interest in the clinical applications of attachment theory.
In historical accounts, Bowlby’s life and work have been described from different angles. For example, Bretherton (1991, 1992) described the theoretical development of attachment theory with emphasis on its roots and growing points. Newcombe and Lerner (1982) paid attention to the historical and societal context in which Bowlby developed his ideas. Bowlby’s political activities in relation to his theoretical ideas were described by Mayhew (2006). Holmes (1993) contributed to the historiography of attachment theory by describing the implications of Bowlby’s ideas for clinical practice, and Karen (1994) added new biographical information. Van Dijken (1998)has traced the core of attachment theory to Bowlby’s early childhood and advanced the thesis that early separation experiences influenced his further development and thinking. Van Dijken and van der Veer (1997), finally, have described the development of Bowlby’s ideas in his early work and claimed that his early views did not substantially change. However, they stressed the fact that any “definitive historical and theoretical assessment… should deal with the life and work of [the] scientist from several interconnected perspectives” (p. 36).
In this article, we add yet another perspective to the historiography of the attachment paradigm by paying attention to the interconnectedness of Bowlby’s ideas with those of his contemporaries. More than Newcombe and Lerner (1982), we focus on specific scientific persons and groups with whom Bowlby shared ideas and to whom he was in intellectual debt and, more than van Dijken (1998), we will pay attention to the so-called “English school” of psychiatry. In this context, special attention is paid to the work of Ian Suttie (1889–1935), who was a leading figure in the English school of psychiatry at the time of his unexpected death.
For the sake of simplicity, we restrict ourselves to the primordial kernel of attachment theory as developed by Bowlby and leave out the later sophistications added by, for example, the strange situation procedure ( Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) or the Adult Attachment Interview ( Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). Indeed, it can be argued that despite all the later methodological and theoretical refinements, the basic tenet of attachment theory has remained surprisingly simple:
Children need a warm continuous relationship with a mother or mother substitute, and they need to be dependably loved; in the absence of such love, they are likely to feel frightened, lonely, and unhappy. Moreover, if there is no possibility for such an affectionate relationship in infancy and childhood, persons may be crippled for life, may never ever be able to develop emotional relationships, and may develop all sorts of behavioral and mental problems.”
Frank C. P. van der Horst Center for Child and Family Studies, Leiden University, The Netherlands;
De Waag, Outpatient Clinic for Forensic Psychiatry, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;
René van der Veer Center for Child and Family Studies, Leiden University, The Netherlands
LikeLike
Thank you, Richard.
LikeLike
This thread goes back to April and so to keep it going into July is boring for me and, I would imagine, most others on the list. I’ve said what i need to say cited the more modern sources, quoted from the consensus so I’ll leave it at that. if you want to hold on to ‘old school’ Maternal Attachment theory then be my guest. i really am not interested.
LikeLike
Sounds like a bright idea.Judges at present who take children from parents for “risk” never compare the risks they run in care with those run by staying with parents of whom the social workers disapprove !
LikeLike
It should certainly be interesting. The research for this study will take two years, so hopefully it will be thorough.
LikeLike
“Sounds likw a good idea . . .. .” When the LCD commissioning committee set up CAFCASS in 2001, it was agreed by all of us (delegates and Whitehall) that the new computerised record system between the then Probation Service panels would be available to panels to permit compare and contrast the results of CWO recommendations and that judges too would be able to interrogate this data base. It never happened ,of course, and thus we are where we are at present – complete with child deaths that are, and were, avoidable.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Hi Natasha, my comment in response to your tweet on this topic is on The Buzz!
LikeLike
Thanks Dana, losing track of where all the comments are going 🙂
LikeLike
Hi Natasha, not your fault! I posted the info about the website on The Buzz and saw your tweet about this topic which I responded to. I just did a cross reference to it here.
It’s a shame it will take 2 years before the results of the study comes in. That will be another 30,000 kids being put into care! Figures based on the 15,000 kids and counting statistic but doesn’t include the rising trend so no doubt it will be higher.
The fact is they are repeating what has been done before. An 80% failure rate on the outcomes of kids in care! On NCCPR there is a satirical article questioning why anybody would continue to prop up a system that is clearly not working for the kids and yet is demanding more money each year to implement! You have to ask who is it it working for if not the kids?!
LikeLike
What can we do? Maybe the system should just focus on providing these children with love and state of the art mental health support. That would do to start with.
LikeLike
Same old as with the meetings going on with the Governments knowing full well of the truth of the abuse of kids, if for once they accepted the truth then we grandparents may have some rights, the Monument as a Memorial for the abused children past and present Cameron does not have the decency to acknowledge and nor does the BBC because if they did acknowledge a Memorial for the abused kids then they would be pleading guilty. Here lies the truth
LikeLike
Oh, and I predict that this study will not look at or count separately “fatherless home” but will conflate households on an income / vulnerability basis (which is currently so fashionable) so that the effect is blurred between fathered and fatherless children.
I also predict that this study will not look at or count mental instability among mothers in SMH (single mother households).
LikeLike
Yes Robert I agree that they should look at the circumstances of the children of those 800,000 British fathers who fail to pay Child Support [currently in excess of 1.3 Billion pounds) and which causes so many children to be living in poverty in single mother households and that such fathers take little or no interest in their children’s lives. Except of course for the few who, when pressed for Child Support immediately apply for shared parenting in the Family Courts in order to evade such payments..
LikeLike
And Robert, I presume your definition of Fatherless Homes includes those where fathers are absent in military service for long periods, or are working abroad, or are absent all week at Westminster.!. Their children must really suffer serious disadvantages and difficulties in their development.
And of course, those 25% of American Presidents who were raised in Fatherless Homes!. (including Thomas Jefferson).
Your continuing proposition that “”Any father is better than no father”” does not have much merit nor credibility I’m afraid.
LikeLike
No, your presumption about fatherless homes and fatherlessness is fatally flawed and your response does not attempt to understand the problem. More endeavor by you, before you reply, in understanding what is meant by fatherlessness is required, I would suggest.
I can go into it in great detail but it might then confound you to realise that children brought up by widows do exceptionally well and are on a par with children raised by single fathers. And in both instances I suspect the reasoning will escape you.
LikeLike
I think what you may be confused with and referring to is the ‘Weekly Assessment Values’ where the ‘FMA Totals’ are in the 866,000 region (e.g. for 2010).
But of that number, 25% (circa 200,000) are non-resident parents (inc some mothers) with ‘zero’ income.
And if you look at CSA Table G2.07 and Table G2.08 from 1996 onwards you will note that the greater majority, around 50%, are disabled, unemployed, or of school/college age or have incomes so low that they can barely feed and clothe themselves, i.e., less than £100 per week.
In 2007 a total of only 485 non-resident parents were successfully prosecuted for non-payment and the 40 named on the CDA site were prosecuted between January and March that year (see http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,,2111914,00.html ).
If you turn to Child Support Agency national statistics (March 2010) you will see that 845,700 children were benefiting from maintenance.
In that year there were 22,300 accumulated Current Scheme applications which remain ‘uncleared’ (not teh implied 800.000), together with 1,900 cases under the Old Scheme applications. And to prove my point they also conclude that “In 49% of assessed cases the non-resident parent is not employed” with 43% being in employment and 8% self-employed. (see http://www.childmaintenance.org/en/pdf/qss/QSS%20March10.pdf ).
Since the mid 2000s the Child Support system as presently set up is unsustainable and that is why the DWP has proposed its abandonment for a smarter system more reflective of the actual ability to pay and the ability of mothers to work.
I hope this clears up matters for you (and other readers).
LikeLike
No Robert it doesn’t clear up anything. It just lists some of the excuses used by fathers to evade and avoid Child Support. (mothers only constiitute approx 7% of separated parents liable for Child Support). According to your statistics over half are in some form of employment (which contradicts your earlier assertion that “the great majority have incomes so low they can barely feed and clothe themselves), yet owe on average approx. 3000 pounds each.
The CSA are reviewing the scheme because of pressures from father’s rights groups, anxious to obtain even greater means to evade and avoid paying child support and to thereby deprive their fatherless children of financial support and inflicting disadvantage and poverty on even more of them.
LikeLike
You have a truly faithful Hobby Horse that you ride well but it will one day, I suspect, collapse from under you either from sheer exhaustion or boredom. You cannot allow yourself to be anything but unidirectional and always fail to see the other side of the coin. Until you do so it is a discourse with the deaf. You have had ample opportunities given to you to make constructive, thoughtful points but you keep returning to your narrow furrow and plough it once again in case we all missed it the first time. Not content with that you then throw in some baseless opinionated summation you have made without any reference to exactly why the DWP is proposing changes. In the scheme of things £1.3 billion pounds is small beer compared to one of the many the subsidies given to Scotland (one of £7 bn) which were cogently articulated by Gordon Brown in the last 7 days. And, of course, SMHs cost the taxpayer £20 bn pa. So get a grip on proportions, please.
Oh, and one last thing, the idea that the CSA scheme is being reviewed solely because of pressure from father’s rights groups – is that so wrong (even supposing it was true), given the pressure exerted on Gov’t by women’s and mother’s groups over the past 30 years ?
LikeLike
“I can go into it in great detail but it might then confound you….. ” – Pigeon Chess Robert..
LikeLike
Oh dear Robert, old boy, you are indeed a rather curious but splendid mix of Baron Munchausen and Don Quixote.
You constantly and obsessively wail on about single mothers being the scourge of mankind and to blame for all the world’s problems, from disaffected youth to undermining the whole social fabric of our society, ánd how it could all be solved if fathers, no matter how good or bad, violent or diffident, charming or irresponsible, continued to be in control of those single wayward women and the children they have (possibly) reproduced with – yet you accuse me of being “…unidirectional and always fail to see the other side of the coin”. I think that more than a little self-examination is required Robert, old boy.
I’m afraid I don’t see the parallels nor the relationship between the vast sums of money owed by absent fathers for their children’s support and thereby the direct financial abuse of their children, and grants made by the government to our friends north of the border. Of course it is expensive for the government (other taxpayers) to maintain those children of single mothers when the absent fathers are failing to do so, and expecting taxpayers to subsidise their irresponsible behaviours and attitudes.
As for what you claim to be my Hobby Horse, there are some people who are still so childlike that, as all parents and schoolteachers do, information and instructoral guidance has to be oft repeated until they begin to show some understanding and awareness and an intelligent grasp of the issues.
I can understand your seeing the world through the narrow prism of male supremacy Robert, and the rights of males to control and subjugate, but I’m afraid we’ve moved on a little since early Victorian times and egalitarianism is proceeding without you and despite you and the other dinosaurs in the Father’s Rights Movement.
Please do bring yourself into the 21st Century and join us if you can. I know it will take an immense effort on your part but I’m sure there will be great rewards for you and a usefulness away from guarding the last bastions of masculine domination. Go in peace and goodwill.
LikeLike
Numbers are not, as far as I am aware, part of any gender war. If I report that SMH cost the taxpayer £20 bn pa is that a bad thing to say ? Or is that telling the truth ? Or is it having a go at women ? If I write that taxpayers pay for a lot of expensive things but fail to mention SMH, am I censoring myself or misleading the public ?
If I did “constantly and obsessively wail on about single mothers being the scourge of mankind and to blame for all the world’s problems” and that “ disaffected youth” was undermining the whole social fabric of our society” then I might agree with you – but I don’t, so I don’t (i.e. I do not agree with you or your assessment).
Consequently, I’m not surprised you “don’t see the parallels nor the relationship between the [allegedly] vast sums of money owed by absent fathers . . .etc” when in accountancy terms it is small beer.
And when all else fails lets resort to blaming it on “the Father’s Rights Movement”, “dinosaurs”, “male supremacy” “Victorian values” anything to distract from the paucity of argument and let’s not talk about real egalitarianism which men and fathers deserve. None of the equality Acts include men as a gender able to benefit from legislation in the same way women do.
It is a sad reflection that I am able to agree with you on some things (and write comments to that effect) yet this does not seem to deter you from taking umbrage on other topics.
LikeLike
No Robert, the point that you and Arndt were trying to make was that McIntosh’s study had had considerable influence in Australia and around the world, and even of the Norgrove Report, when in fact it had had no influence whatsoever in the Australian Family Courts which were and continue to be ordering babies and infants into extended visitation contact with fathers, in some instances ordering mothers to express breastmilk in sufficient quantities to meet the babies needs for several days.
e.g. “The first article referred to a dawning that the accepted belief that children aged under 4 should not stay overnight with their separated or divorced father was wrong-headed. This is the diet that has underpinned the West’s family law system for years and Bettina Arndt dared to ask the impertinent but sound question “Has it all been a huge mistake ?”.
The “wrongheadedness’ was in your and Arndt’s assumptions.
LikeLike
Pigeon Chess again, Robert.
Of course numbers are a constant source of missiles for that small group of disgruntled fathers who you represent. i.e. the less than 10 per cent who take their grouses and grumbles to Family Courts. They are constantly quoting any figures which denigrate mothers and your references to single mothers on benefits is in the same vein. As I have said before, the vast majority of separated fathers who act reasonably and responsibly are able to make arrangements for the care of their children without recourse to Family law proceedings, and it is only the rejected, inadequate, irresponsible, and inferior fathers who use such proceedings as a means to regain control of former female partners and children, or to evade their financial responsibilities.
You are of course including in what you refer to as SMHs and the benefits they receive, the widows of fallen soldiers and other mothers and their children who are widowed and fatherless following works accidents, motor accidents etc.
The difference Robert in the figures is that the financial support given to Scotland which you quoted, is a political decision made by those you elected, whilst the failures of fathers to meet their financial obligations to their children and to society is an individual choice. It is not a matter of simplistic “accountancy terms” .
If my arguments had such paucity, then they would be ignored whereas they certainly engender considerable debate.
Men don’t need any legislation to enforce their rights, their rights are already favourably inbuilt in the laws and which is why women are seeking to obtain similar rights. It is only the supremacist rights of that small group of fathers stated above which are under threat as they seek to re-assert such supremacist position which they enjoyed in Victorian times.
I noted with interest Robert a recent comment of yours that fathers are able to look after children under 4 years because those children spend most of their time sleeping. i.e.
• “Infants and toddlers often sleep away from their mothers and away from their home cribs. They sleep in prams, car seats, bassinets, and parent’s arms.
• They sleep in day care, in church, and in grandparents’ homes. Any married couple that take a holiday in the first few years of their child’s life leaves the child in someone else’s care.
• Clinicians do not routinely advise parents against taking such holidays.
• If infants can tolerate sleeping away from both parents during nap time at day care centres, on what basis can it be argued that sleeping away from one parent, in the familiar home of the other parent, would harm children?
• They cannot provide any basis for assuming that the children could tolerate different surroundings while awake but could not tolerate such surroundings while they are asleep and mostly unaware of their environment.
Perhaps you could explain how fathers are able to develop `a meaningful relationship’ with sleeping children and to enjoy “significant and substantial time with their sleeping infants.?.
Another windmill to tilt at with your lance, Robert?.
LikeLike
You certainly appear have a skewed and slovenly view of men in general and a rose-tinted view of court proceedings. The 10 per cent, let me guess, is your misapplication of the ONS Omnibus sample study ? But if you look at full judicial statistics you’ll find around 99,000 cases heard out of a possibly 110,000 separations. Not, I suggest to you, a 10 to 1 ratio (i.e. 10%).
I don’t have to ‘constantly’ ‘denigrate mothers’ I just cite the numbers and the references – everyone is free to draw their own conclusions including you. If you are out of step or come to conclsuions that are at variance that is your problem, not mine. In fact you have not asked me about SMH or about the role mothers ideally should play in a child’s life. If you took the time to see past your personal hurt perhaps, or your venom and spite you might be surprised.
You appear to have no grounding in SMHs, widows, and or fatherlessness so it is pointless going further until you are au fait with the subsets. As I have written elsewhere on this forum widows do surprisingly well for their children’s life chances (outcomes), whereas other categories of SMH decidedly don’t. You need to find out why and start arguing from that point.
And, of course, you are right – your arguments have a paucity and they should ordinarily be ignored but we pass this way but once in life and it is our duty to help others whenever we can and bring them a little enlightenment – even if someone is peevish, or can’t comprehend my previous comment about fathers looking after children aged under 4 years (and I refer you here to 1/. Prof. Warshal and 2/. Nielsen latest works).
Wonderfully, the URL you quote in your reply is all about McIntosh and asks why is she on a crusade ? (and this also tells me a lot about you). I applaud you for taking the time to read it and in coming to terms with some of the contrary views. If you read more of my articles I believe the penny will soon drop for you. It certainly has in Australia where “McIntosh: Cat on a hot tin roof ? “ (http://sharedparenting.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/42/) is currently going down a storm and Bettina Arndt is doing a wonderful job bringing some truth to the social sciences (see The Age, 28/4/14).
LikeLike
I wonder if the Royal babies are any different? Wills & Kate recently went on holiday without the baby George and I’m sure he is left with others more times than not at the best of times. The Royals have been called a disfunctional family in the past and this practise has been around for centuries going through the generations. Wonder what the social workers would think about it?
LikeLike
Thank you Dana for that excellent point, especially as it has such wide implications for all of us.
LikeLike
Your inane scribblings on your Weblog Robert, were brought to my attention by other Mums in our group, as they wanted me to share in their merriment regarding your comments (commonly referred to as ROFL). Their comments were largely of the kind, ”He’s typical of that small group of men who know nothing about the emotional, physical, medical, psychological, intellectual, social and other developmental needs of small children and whose perceptions of children are that they are inanimate objects which can simply be shared out when couples separate, along with the house, cars, and financial assets.”.
However, I’m sure your comments will appeal to that small group of fathers who share your perceptions.
And this leads into Bettina Arndt’s comments. As usual, she demonstrates only a simplistic and superficial grasp of the issues, coloured by her own biases and prejudices. She also sees the situation simply as a matter of sharing an inanimate object, and gives no thought or consideration to the fact that every child is a unique individual with discreet emotional, physical, medical, psychological, intellectual, social and other developmental needs or how either parent proposes and has the ability to meet those needs.
Also in Australia the experiences of children in shared care arrangements were described by themselves as being like `Ping-Pongs’ and spending their lives living out of backpacks, and as more than one child described it, Ï have two houses, but I don’t have a home!”.
These are the real concerns of mothers, not simply the child’s age which is an arbitrary measure. Their comments are mostly in the vein of, “He can’t even look after himself, so how does he propose to look after a small infant?”. And in many cases, “He simply dumps the children with the paternal grandmother, or female relatives, or a girlfriend of convenience.”. and “He just ignores them when they are ill and doesn’t give them their medications or even take them to a doctor”. These are the far more important concerns, rather than the age of the child.
I have long argued that Family Courts should mandatorily require both parents to include in their initial application their answers to the following questions: 1. What do you consider to be each of your children’s individual emotional, physical, medical, psychological, intellectual, and social needs and how do you propose to meet those needs during your period of shared care.?. What are the living arrangements where you propose to take the child and how do you envisage your children will be looked after and benefit from such arrangements?. How would you evaluate your current relationship with your children, and how do they view you – i.e. how meaningful is your existing relationship?.
Perhaps Robert, you may wish to address those questions yourself for our perusal, to demonstrate your great knowledge on the subject of the needs of children, in say a situation of a 18 month old female child who is still breast feeding.?.
LikeLike
“ . . . in say a situation of an 18 month old female child who is still breast feeding ?” This sort of red herring does not surprise me. When all else fails lets resort to the anecdotal.
Don’t you find it just a little odd that 110 experts from around he world agree with Warshak and not McInstosh ? Don’t you find it intriguing that McIntosh, instead of embracing freedom of thought and speech and welcoming a challenge is reaching for the law and its draconian powers to silence up contrary views ? How very Soviet. What humbug when she expects to have her voice heard uncritically by the same society.
It is reassuring to know that there are, according to you, mums out there that fully comprehend the situation and have a better grasp of things than acknowledged experts. So let’s hear from them – or you – as to their solution because they have been unable to come up with one so far and what has been suggested over the past decades has only resulted in greater failure. So who is really the one stuck in the past, I wonder ?
LikeLike
And Robert, if the age of a child were such a major issue, then why is it that Family Courts have given it so little regard and absolutely ignored McIntosh’s findings.?. Can you quote us some cases where fathers have been refused contact with a child under four years, simply because of the child’s age?.
Especially when Family Courts have paid such little heed to domestic violence and child abuse and have given contact and custody of children to fathers who are convicted paedophiles, child sex abusers, rapists, violent offenders, drug/ alcohol addicts, etc.
Even an eminent British judge has openly declared that “Even paedophiles have the right to see their children!.”.
So please tell us what more heinous crimes have been committed by those fathers who you represent, that they have been denied contact with their children?.
The mantra of the Family Courts, lawyers, Court Reporters/ Consultants, and its other personnel is, and always has been, “Father’s Rights will be protected no matter what the cost to the child, the mother, or to society!.”. Pagelow M.D. (1990) Effects of Domestic Violence on children and their consequences for custody and visitation arrangements. Mediation Quarterly. 7. 347-363.
LikeLike
” . . . And Robert, if the age of a child were such a major issue, then why is it that Family Courts have given it so little regard and absolutely ignored McIntosh’s findings.?. Can you quote us some cases where fathers have been refused contact with a child under four years, simply because of the child’s age ? ”
Thank you, Ragnvald, you make my point for me.
LikeLike
Australian Family Courts have been giving custody of under four year olds to fathers for many years and still are. Here is but one example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnZMH1OHsw0
I can personally vouch that this case is absolutely authentic – the little girl is now seriously mentally ill in psychiatric hospital.
So Bettina Arndt knows nothing about what is going on right under her nose.
LikeLike
How some types love the anecdotal to try to prove a universal truth.
I’ve viewed the YouTube video and, effective though it may appear, one has to ask how many parents are both AIDS infected and sexual deviants and have sexual offence records and how many of the other parent concerned are OCD or have some other form of mental condition ? We are talking about fractions of percentages of the whole population and numerically, very small amounts. The point about sibling sexual pressure/encounters is well made and is an aspect wholly under-reported in modern ‘blended’ families.
Why, one has to ask does this allegedly normal woman have only supervised visits granted – is there more to this than is being revealed or is she being treated in the same way as most fathers ? Nevertheless one has to decide whether to act based on some isolated cases or act for the greater good as it affects the majority. Australia has shown it has chosen the latter while the UK is still stuck with the former.
What does come out from this video – and which I endorse unreservedly – is the mother’s sense of powerlessness as events in the other hoousehold spiral out of control. Tens of thousands of fathers share this sense of powerlessness as they gaze on what is happening in their ex-wife’s household and the new step-father and/or succession of boyfriends which means the child’s interests do not come first and, indeed, are sometimes abrogated.
LikeLike
P.S. This is the actual case if you want to read up on it on the AustLii website.
J & W [1999] FamCA 1002 (13 August 1999)
IN THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA Appeal No SA46 of 1999 AT MELBOURNE File No AD2068 of 1997
BETWEEN:
J – Appellant Mother
– and –
W – Respondent Husband
CORAM: NICHOLSON CJ, KAY & O’RYAN JJ
DATE OF HEARING: 1 July 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13 August 1999
INTERIM PARENTING ORDERS – Five year old child lived with M – F diagnosed as suffering from AIDS – M reluctant to allow contact – M absconded with the child, who was located and placed in F’s care – Application for interim orders – Risks of one parent with irrational concerns about the other making disparaging comments to the child and re-absconding with the child – Risks from the other parent having limited parenting experience and AIDS – Application of Cowling principles – Proper evaluation of relevant considerations – Child to remain in F’s care in the interim period
LikeLike
I don’t intend seeking to defend McIntosh nor Warshak et al for that matter, as this is little more than an academic spat for academic one-upmanship and has nothing to do with the day-to-day realities of children suffering immense damage to their emotional and psychological wellbeing by having their needs for a stable, secure, constant and consistent emotional and psychological security constantly undermined to satisfy selfish parental rights and wants. I deal in the day-to-day realities of seeing those children suffering such damage, brought about by the complete absence of knowledge of the needs of small children which is an ever-present in the Family Courts.
Yes the mums do have considerably more knowledge than the `experts’ who sit in the Ivory Towers of universities, and they certainly have far greater knowledge of the needs of small children than any of those experts, especially psychologists whose experience is invariably second or third hand, and garnered from half hour office interviews.
I note your discomfort and retreat into statistics and figures whenever the realities of the actual sufferings of children are mentioned, and your complete failures to show empathy and compassion in any of those situations. How very psychopathic.!.
It is the anecdotes Robert, which direct us towards the overall sufferings which are being inflicted on children and young people in the Family Courts, and which are occurring in UK, American, and Australian Courts every day. But then, human suffering is of little interest to academics, lawyers, statisticians, and those who seek constant escape into the false world they create for themselves.
LikeLike
This is not by any means an isolated case. It is standard procedure in American and Australian Family Courts that where a mother denies contact to the father and/ or absconds with her children either interstate or overseas in order to protect them, then those Courts will order that the mother is imprisoned and/or heavily fined and/or ordered to pay the full Courts costs, and worst of all, she and the children are punished by a perverse reversal of custody of the children being ordered to live with the abusive father. The most recent instance of this type is Swafford and Tarbell. [AustLii.].
An American mother who fled with her daughter to Australia over 20 years ago to escape a brutal and abusive father, is currently in an Australian prison awaiting extradition back to the USA for punishment for defying the patriarchal hegemony of the American Family Courts and Abusive Father’s Rights extremists. The vengeance of fathers has no time limits. Fortunately her daughter is now an adult and cannot therefore be forced to return to the father. There is also a similar case of Jennifer Collins, whose mother Holly sought and was granted asylum in Holland following her escape from domestic violence and child abuse and the lack of protection by the American Family Courts. Fortunately the patriarchal Hague Convention was ineffective in this instance.
Where please are these “Tens of thousands of fathers share this sense of powerlessness” ?. No doubt you have detailed and authentic statistics to support such a conjecture or is that merely anecdotal.?. Or do you mean the Hundreds of Thousands of fathers who OF THEIR OWN CHOICE choose not to be involved in their children’s lives and are consistently financially abusing their children by evading and avoiding paying Child Support to the tune of 1.3 BILLION POUNDS.?. But then, even if they were to choose to, why should they have contact with their children when they refuse to pay for their children’s proper upbringing and force taxpayers to subsidise them in their irresponsibility.?.
And when contact is given to fathers, mothers have to endure watching their children passed off to paternal grandmothers, or other adult female relatives, or girlfriends of convenience, or step-mothers who dislike looking after other women’s children or conversely seek to replace the real mother and insist on being called `Mum’ thereby pushing the real mother into insignificance.
LikeLike
Robert – as you are such a fan of research and statistics, I’m sure you’ll be very interested to add the following to your database for future promotion and publicity so that a much more accurate situation is presented, rather than the fabrications and fantasies which tend to be passed around. Unfortunately, the vast majority of judges, lawyers, Court Reporters/ Consultants are ignorant of or choose to ignore the findings of this research and statistical evidence, which has led to very considerable poor and inappropriate decision-making in Family Law cases.
MESSAGES FROM RESEARCH – FAMILY COURTS IN ENGLAND & WALES, AMERICA, AND AUSTRALIA
Although there is no statutory presumption of contact, a pro-contact stance is implicit and decisions in leading cases have resulted in a strong assumption of contact by judges. The number of Contact Orders granted by the courts increased from 42,000 in 1997 to 61,356 in 2002, and over the same period the number of contact orders refused by the courts fell from 1850 to 518 – in 2002 only 0.8% of orders were refused. Judicial Statistics (2002) Lord Chancellor’s Department).
Only 9% of non-resident parents say they never see their child . Attwood C et al (2003) Home Office Citizenship Survey: people, families and communities Home Office
There is no evidence to show that contact with a violent parent is good for the child. It is the nature and quality of parenting by the contact parent that is important, not contact in itself, and where there is abuse, parental conflict or domestic violence, contact is extremely damaging to children Hunt J and Roberts C (2004) ‘Child contact with non resident parents’ Family Policy Briefing
In 2000 a Court of Appeal decision (Re L) described domestic violence as ‘a significant failure of parenting’.
Children who have lived with domestic violence need support, safety and a stable environment to recover from its effects. Children’s emotional and behavioural problems are associated with their relationship with their father. The more fear and anxiety, the greater the problems. The longer children are away from a violent father, the greater the improvement in adjustment (Jaffe, Zerwer and Poisson. Access Denied. The Barriers of Violence and Poverty for Abused Women and their Children After Separation. 2003.
The value of contact and its quality is rarely examined. 16% of refuges in England and Wales say they know of local cases since April 2001 where a contact visit with a violent parent has resulted in a child being significantly harmed (16). Since 1999 at least 19 children have been killed during contact visits in England and Wales . Women’s Aid Federation of England website http://www.womensaid.org.uk
A recent report stated that there are ‘serious concerns that contact is being inappropriately ordered in cases where there are established risks’ .. ) Hunt and Roberts Child contact with non-resident parents 2004
Since the introduction of court guidance on contact and domestic violence in April 2001, across England and Wales – at least 18 children have been ordered to have contact with fathers who had committed offences against children (schedule 1 offenders); 64 children have been ordered to have contact with fathers whose behaviour previously caused children to be placed on the Child Protection Register. 21 of these children were ordered to have unsupervised contact with the violent father. 101 children have been ordered to live with a violent father, often because he was living in secure accommodation in the former family home Saunders H and Barron J (2003) op. cit .
Between 1995 and 1999 in England and Wales, 90 per cent of the known or suspected killers of children aged 10-16 were male, dropping to 62 per cent for children aged below five years, and 56 per cent for infants of less than one year (23). Infanticides (killings of infants under 1 year by a natural parent) are committed in roughly equal proportions by mothers (47%) and fathers (53%) – where the child is killed by someone other than a parent, males strongly predominate. Brookman and Maguire (2003) Reducing Homicide: a review of the possibilities Home Office Publications.
.
General patterns of domestic violence are much more characteristic of male filicide perpetrators than of female: men who kill their children are more likely to have been violent to the child, and to their partner, before the filicide. Women are more likely to have been diagnosed as suffering from some form of psychiatric disorder. Wilczynski A (1995) ‘Child Killing By Parents: A Motivational Model’ Child Abuse Review.
In Australia males outnumber females 76% : 24% as killers of children. The largest number of children 35% (n43) died as a consequence of a family dispute, usually relating to the termination of their parents’ relationship and men were the offenders in all these incidents. Strang, H. (1996) ‘Children as Victims of Homicide’ in Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. No 53).
In general, resident parents (usually the mother) want their ex-partners to see the children more, not less Hunt J (2003) ‘Researching Contact’ NCOPF
The majority of women who have experienced domestic violence also want to maintain their children’s contact with the father after separation. Despite mothers trying hard to maintain contact, contact ultimately fails because of the men’s continuing violence and abuse. Hester and Radford, (1996) Domestic Violence and Child Contact Arrangements in England and Denmark.
Experts have dismissed Parental Alienation Syndrome – it is not recognised as a ‘syndrome’, not accepted by mainstream opinion and not a helpful concept. Sturge and Glaser (2000) ‘Contact and domestic violence – the Experts’ Court Report’ Family Law September and courts are too ready to brand as ‘implacably hostile’ parents who have very good reasons for opposing contact. In Australia a study of applications to enforce contact orders found 65% involved major concerns about the non-resident parent’s care. Rhoades H (2002) ‘The No Contact Mother’ International Journal of Law Policy and the Family.
In England and Wales since 2001, 175 women have been threatened with sanctions, including imprisonment and losing residence of their child, for failing to agree to unsafe contact, even where there is evidence of police involvement, breached injunctions and convictions for violence . Saunders and Barron 2003
Magowan P (2004) research into disabled women’s experiences of domestic violence. The following quote was typical of Magowan’s findings: “He (the abuser) told me ‘If you leave me I can guarantee that I’m going to have G (child) taken off you’. He went to the Social Services, said I was an unfit mother because I was disabled … I’d been married before and I’d lost my three girls. Then, I got in with an abusive partner. Then I had G … G wasn’t the easiest child to look after in the world … I was having violence, I was being abused, I’d been scalded, I’d been locked up all day … I was in a state. But the social worker said ‘We’ve got a choice to make … you either give up custody or stay with your partner’. We went to court and he (the abuser) actually got custody of G. He (the child) would have been taken away from me if I didn’t stay with K (abuser). So what did I do? … I stayed with my partner for G’s sake.. I hated my partner but I stayed with him because that was the only way I could keep G.”
LikeLike
_____
LikeLike
I do apologies for this delay in replying but I’ve been called away to attend other pressing matters. I had planned to begin to close down this dialogue with the deaf which, no doubt, will also be a relief to others as it is to me, as we have all by now moved on.
However, as you have shown willing to dig up some information you do at least deserve an answer albeit one that is not as fulsome as I would have liked.
In your email beginning “I don’t intend seeking to defend McIntosh . . .” I could not disagree with you more. It is not that anecdotes direct us towards some greater truth but instead push us into the category of “hard cases make bad law.”
Yes, Mums, like Dads, do have some knowledge to bring to the party but it is riding for a fall to think that all `experts’ sit in the Ivory Towers are out of touch and benign. As we have seen from McIntosh and her coterie (e.g. Flood, Wade, Hunt, Ceridwen Roberts, Mclean, Neale, Flowerdew, Trinder, Smart), as they are far from benign.
Whatever you or I may think of such crisp vs wooly-minded academics government policy is more likely to be influenced by them than any other source.
The selfish parental rights and wants is a good place to start and the current crop of judges, professionals and mothers will have to readjust their position and let fathers play a more active role if we are to ever call ourselves an equality driven society.
So whereas I agree with you that “the vast majority of judges, lawyers, Court Reporters/ Consultants are ignorant of or choose to ignore the findings of this research and statistical evidence, which has led to very considerable poor and inappropriate decision-making in Family Law cases” I fear I may come to a different conclusion to your world view.
And though I applaud your industry ref. me being a fan of research and statistics and you providing me with same, 12 year old data (from 2002) is a little to old to use meaningfully these days. Notwithstanding that, if 9% of non-resident parents say they ‘never’ see their child isn’t that 9% too much ? If it were that low wouldn’t that be in the region of 11,000 children ? And, of course, never means never and does not encompass ‘rarely’ or bi-annually etc. For more see “Non-Resident Fathers in Britain”, Bradshaw, Stimson, Williams & Skinner (Uni. of York, SPRU). Interim report 1997.
The problem with Home Office Citizenship Survey – and indeed that of the ONS and the old LCD – was that they relied on skewed gender samples. If you look at a more recent Population Trends, No 140 (see Figure 4), of 2010, you will see that in one sample they concede that 58% of children they are trying to measure were not asked or were not part of the survey. Let me quote: “The remaining 58% [of children] (not shown on this chart) never stay overnight with their non-resident parent.”
British statistics generally I will concede are inadequate compared with the detail provided by say the Americans. They disappoint mainly in their lack of objectivity which masquerades as empirical research, and one that comes especially to mind is the Millennium Cohort Study where one discovers that, “The study mainly consists of interviews with the main carer. This was the mother in 98% of cases.”
In 2001 we dealt in committee with Women’s Aid claim that since year X a certain number of children (they‘ve changed the number of over the years) had been killed by their fathers during contact visits in England and Wales. (You may find that in 2001 they claimed 29 deaths). The LCD staff looked into it and found absolutely no evidence of the sort but so insistent was Women’s Aid that they refused to take it down from their website and even after a judicial enquiry which also found it all complete tosh – their false claim was still there the last time I looked (see Lord Justice Nicholas Wall 2006 report http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Reports/report_childhomicides.pdf).
What Women’s Aid did not want to talk about was the total of child deaths per annum where the majority is at the hands of women. Of the 210 child deaths in 2008 and recorded by OFSTED the gender bias is clear. And in the recent past the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) has had to correct an error in its Annual Report for 2007 ‘National Homicide Monitoring Program’, and make mothers, not fathers, the largest single killer of children.
You speak of children living with domestic violence, their needing support, safety and a stable environment to recover from its effects and I would agree with you. But bear in mind that 67% of child abuse in urban areas is generated by mentally unstable SMHs and those children are subjected to emotional and behavioural problems of that parent for which there is no way out (see your own McGuire). So if fear and anxiety is associated with their relationship with fathers, it is, I suggest, on a lesser scale.
It serves no purpose 20 years later and they are way out of date to even begin to debate 1995 homicide numbers, even if they were cited accurately. “90 per cent” may sound dramatic but have you I wonder included for peer murders in the10 -16 age range ? “Killers” is such a vague statistical term; it includes accidental deaths, manslaughter, road traffic accidents, poisonings etc, etc. And I think you will have to concede that omitted from your quote was the pervious line which reads: “First of all, while within adult homicide, men predominate as offenders, infants are much more likely than older children to be killed by
women.”
QED ?
At that I will draw a line under events as I am sure that like me, you have other pressing matters to attend to. I hope you have enjoyed this ding-dong of an exchange.
LikeLike
Unfortunately these studies tend to reach conclusions based on highly subjective adult beliefs, values, and attiitudes regarding what is ”in the best interest of the child”.
Most children in phoney substitute care situations see themselves as captives of the system after separation from their real families, but they do not have the options of Fight or Flight. Therefore their first priority is to survive and to succumb and conform to the requirements of the environment they are in and the adults who control their lives.
Often those adults incorrectly of deliberately misrepresent the moods and behaviours of children in such circumstances to their adult advantage e.g. a seriously depressed child is described as “a quiet and self-centred girl” or a distressed, anxious child has been upset by contact with the real parents and siblings or rebelliousness of a child is blamed on their early life with the real parents.
In some situations children experience a form of Stockholm Syndrome, accepting their captivity and the beliefs, values, and attitudes of their captors as the ultimate means of survival.
I don’t hold out much hope that this study will uncover the real situations of children and their feelings and experiences in the captivity of the State Care system.
LikeLike
Yes, we are not very child aware in this country; the level of understanding is still far too low.
LikeLike
Sadly Natasha, there are still a great many adults, not least the Family Court judiciary and lawyers, who still believe in the Victorian adage that “Children should be seen, but not heard”, hence the need for Maggie Tuttle’s slogan `Children Screaming to be Heard’. It is over half a century since the rights of children to be heard and their views taken into account were embodied in the UN Charter of Children’s Rights. [1959] and was finally ratified by the UK government in circa 1990.
But then, the British legal and political system does not move along very quickly does it. Unless of course it is to remove children from their real families and place them in phoney substitute families.!.
LikeLike
Now this contribution from Ragnvald I can fully agree with, esp. the first twp sentences, i.e.. ” . . . .subjective adult beliefs, values, and attiitudes regarding what is ”in the best interest of the child”.
LikeLike
Sounds like a long overdue study!
Sent from my iPhone
>
LikeLike
http://www.historyandpolicy.org/advisory.html
http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-135.html
‘The dangerous age of childhood’: child guidance in Britain c.1918-1955
by John Stewart
As we have seen, psychologists and psychiatrists were often at odds over child guidance. Such professional disputes are not a thing of the past, as the on going arguments within and between various professional groups over the causes and treatment of ADHD attest. And if we accept, as we must, that problems can occur in childhood is it necessarily the case that ‘better’ parenting is the solution? It may be, but so also might be reductions in health and income inequalities or improved educational provision. In short, policy makers and opinion formers engaging with children and childhood should be at the very least aware that there was never a ‘Golden Age’ of childhood and childrearing; that there are lessons to be drawn from the debates around, and successes and failures of, movements such as child guidance; that standards of parenting is not always the issue; and that the whole notion of ‘childhood’ is the subject of flux and change.
http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-107.html#S7
‘Happy Families?’ history and policy
by Pat Thane
Conclusions
Families have changed over time, but there has not been a straightforward shift from one extreme of secure and happy marriages, to another of divorce, cohabitation and unmarried parenthood. Families have always been diverse, though patterns of diversity have shifted.
It is also clear that poorer people have had, and continue to have, the most unstable family lives: most prone to break-up due to death, desertion, violence or stress due to unemployment and poverty.
Thus the tendency to blame family break-up for social problems, such as educational under-achievement and crime, may divert attention from another major cause both of these problems and of family instability: socio-economic inequality.
http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-136.html
‘Troubled Families’: the lessons of history, 1880-2012. Has the same idea been invented and re-invented?
“While there has already been some repackaging of terms such as ‘troubled families’, we can only guess what form these labels will take in the future. Overall, while the Government talks about ‘history repeating itself’ in families and between generations, the history that has really been repeated here has been that of a flawed discourse.”
LikeLike
I think what this new study hopes to do is clear up the still ambiguous findings on what actually causes worse outcomes for children in care – the care itself or the damage an abusive childhood inflicts.
I do think the common sense outcome of this must be that the care system has a lot to answer for – children need love and support, something in very short supply in the care system generally, and they need to feel continuity on some level, continuity of love and support. I think the system focuses far too much on continuity of things which are irrelevant.
A child needs love – if they get that from everyone they meet inside the care system, it would counteract myriad other issues. The saddest part? Giving love is totally free and the government could save billions.
It will also be the case that some children are so badly abused by the time they come into care that there may be very little hope for them, but they should be a very small number, far smaller than we see today, where children who are unable to have full and happy lives are concerned.
What this study will unearth will be interesting – at best, it will give us confirmation that the system needs to change completely, at worst it will give us nothing at all.
We shall have to see.
LikeLike
Hi Natasha wish I knew how to cut and paste some of the research gone out today on the new web link then people will know more truth and why kids are being snatched.
LikeLike
Hi Maggie, try this >>>> http://www.wikihow.com/Copy-and-Paste
xxxxxxx
LikeLike
While some of the research above can be daunting to read through it may be as well just to read what those policies have done to the children taken from their families and placed into care supposedly for their well being!
EXTRACT
“When compared to adults of the same age and ethnic background who did not endure foster care:
· Only 20 percent of the alumni could be said to be “doing well.” Thus, foster care failed for 80 percent.
· They have double the rate of mental illness.
· Their rate of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was double the rate for Iraq War veterans.
· The former foster children were three times more likely to be living in poverty – and fifteen times less likely to have finished college.
· And nearly one-third of the alumni reported that they had been abused by a foster parent or another adult in a foster home.
“At a two-and-a-half-hour briefing for advocates, there was barely a word about
keeping children out of foster care in the first place.
Why, then, do we continue to pour billions of dollars into a system which fails 80
percent of the time and actually abuses at least one-third of those forced into it?
We do it because, over 150 years, we’ve built up a huge, powerful network of
foster-care “providers” – “a foster care-industrial complex” with an enormous vested
interest in perpetuating the status quo. They feed us horror stories about foster children whose birth parents really were brutally abusive or hopelessly addicted. But such cases represent a tiny fraction of the foster-care population”.
This is not just happening in the US but in the UK too!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19984615
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19566617
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13440736
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/10/23/children-sex-trade-foster-care-column/3153537/
“State governments admitted they could not locate 4,973 foster children at the end of fiscal year 2012”. Unbelievable!
http://www.liftingtheveil.org/foster03.htm
It’s shameful that this atrocity, under the guise of child protection, has continued for so long but has never benefitted the children who it is supposed to be for! Frankly the worst aspects of the care system would be eliminated by getting rid of most of it and supporting the children to stay with their parents.
LikeLike
[Content removed]
LikeLike
Hi there, I’m so sorry but I’ve had to edit out the link you kindly added. At the moment the site doesn’t seem to want to come up and the name itself suggests that people’s details may be added, which by law I’m not allowed to reprint as the content could be defamatory. If the site is only about professionals who have already been charged with an offence or have been disciplined, then I can add the site details.
LikeLike
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614286/Foster-parents-warned-holding-hands-children-crossing-road-abuse.html
The children were removed from the couple in Buckinghamshire while social workers investigated ‘marks’ on the children’s wrists.
According to the Department of Education, one in every 166 children in the UK is in care.
*68,110 children in care
50,900 children in foster care
37,510 are boys
30,600 are girls
4,310 are under one year old
12,360 between one and four
13,260 between five and nine
24,450 between ten and 15
13,730 16 and over
Despite 233 children being removed from foster care last year, according to Foster Talk, a company which provides support for foster parents, the majority of allegations are false.
The most common reason arises out of the child’s belief that if they tell someone that they are being mistreated, they will be able to return home to their parents.
*The stats quoted by the Daily Mail are either out of date or the stats given in the programme150,000 and counting where social workers were followed for two years are wrong! Does anyone know the correct figures anymore?
LikeLike
http://www.channel4.com/news/how-the-law-is-failing-victims-of-foster-parent-abuse
How law fails victims of foster parent abuse. 2012
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2011/07/25/research-how-widespread-is-abuse-in-foster-care/
Research: how widespread is abuse in foster care? 2011
http://www.uppaltaylor.com/news.asp
List of more abused children
https://suite.io/karen-stephenson/4dwh2ff
http://familyrightsassociation.com/news/archive/2009/july/sexual_abuse_epidemic.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20110511182415/http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=6703
(Articles written by attorneys & experts worldwide discussing legal aspects related to Family Law.
LikeLike
Thank you for all these interesting links, D.
LikeLike
https://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDetails&consultationId=1961&external=no&menu=1
Hi Natasha, Just one more tonight from D of E.
Powers to delegate children’s social care functions.
This consultation seeks views on proposed regulations that will enable local authorities to delegate additional children’s social care functions to third party providers.
Just another spanner to throw in the mix! Will they have any accountability?
LikeLike
God knows. I’ve learned that no amount of law seems to make any difference; accountability has to be enforced by humans, but no one wants the job.
LikeLike
True Natasha,new laws usually fail to ensure accountability or even to change most people’s behaviour for the better.Abolishing EXISTING LAWS however can make all the difference1:-.Scrap the authority of family courts and social workers to remove children from their families so leaving child cruelty and subdequent punishments to the police and criminal courts.2:- Scrap forced adoption 3:- Scrap all gagging orders and injunctions except those designed to prevent a serious crime being committed ;there being reasonable grounds for believing in such a risk.
Our troubles these days come in no small part from the proliferation of new rules and regulations .Most injustices and petty annoyances could be resolved by scrapping the most oppressive laws inflicted on us by a parliament in thrall to bureaucrats !.
LikeLike
Having just read the story about the harrowing 18 month ordeal that Freddie Starr has just gone through, after all charges against him were dropped, but he has not emerged unscathed. He said while he was being investigated he was prevented from seeing his 7 year child and considered suicide. He is not the first celebrity to be investigated after accusations have been made. Some, like Max Clifford have been found guilty. While investigations must be carried out, what happens to the person investigated and cleared of any wrongdoing? Their lives and their families lives have been changed forever. A cloud of doubt still hovers over them affecting their relationships and threatens work prospects. Emotionally they will never be the same again. They are also out of pocket financially as they have funded their own defence. These investigations must continue but surely there is a better way than destroying the lives of those who are being investigated on accusations alone.
LikeLike
http://www.cochrane.org/CD006546/BEHAV/kinshipcare-for-the-safety-permanency-and-well-being-of-maltreated-children
Why is kinship care not the preferred path when it’s clearly better for the child?
Why is that not being supported?
LikeLike
Perversely it might be the price we have to pay, and a good thing in the longer term, that these sorts of things are happening to Freddie Starr and other celebrities as it will help swing a very reluctant spotlight onto what is happening to thousands of equally innocent ordinary men every year.
We seem to forget in family law matters that ‘all are innocent until proven guilty’. Why is this fundamental right so readily suspended in such cases ?
If there are 68,110 children ‘in care’, we have to ask ourselves what they are there for ? Is it sexual abuse or neglect, starvation, torture or physical abuse. Data suggests that some 80% to 90% are there for neglect, starvation, physical abuse etc. and not sexual abuse. This divides the problem into 1/. parents that need re-education and 2/. those predators who need to be separated from society.
As for comments ascribed to Prof Patricia Thane (author of Unmarried Motherhood), one has to questioned her evaluation of the events and compare them to the work of say Prof L. Stone (Road to Divorce, England 1530-1987), and pioneer Prof. Norman Dennis (Families Without Fatherhood (1992), Rising Crime and the Dismembered Family (1993), The Invention of Permanent Poverty (1997).
Thane’s claims of 1/. the post-Second World War period was the historically unusual period, with high rates of relatively long-lasting marriages., 2/. high rates of lone motherhood and of complex step-families were common for centuries due to high death rates especially among younger men, 3/. never in English history have so many marriages lasted so long as between the late 1940s and the early 1970s. 4/. high rates of marriage break-up were also common in the past, do not stand up to scrutiny using statistical data published by ONS over the past 30 years. Like Carol Smart, who claimed divorces were rising in the 1950s and 60s when in fact they were falling), Pat Thane almost gets it right. Table 1.9 (p. 13, Population Trends) shows us that in 1920 – not in the 1930s – that 20% of women remained single.
LikeLike
The Evidence is in. Foster care vs. Keeping Families Together. The Definitive Studies.
2 studies involving 15,000 kids, followed by 23,000 kids the following year.
Why has the UK government ignored this massive piece of research?
Why has UK research ignored kinship care, preferring to sever relationships with the family in favour of the foster placements? It’s not about the child but keeping things sweet with foster carers, of which there are a shortage of. What else will social workers do to keep their numbers up? In assessments? In allegations of abuse?
“These studies found thousands of children who were already in foster care who would have done better had child protection agencies not taken them away in the first place.”
All cases should be reviewed and children given the opportunity to return to their families before it’s too late for them!
nccpr.info/
LikeLike
Good morning Natasha I just saw this please can I ask if you are aware of the results of this study as it was 2016 when this was posted I wondered if the study had been concluded many thanks Kate
LikeLike
Hi Kate, it looks as if this page has been removed too. I can’t tell you why that might be as it’s not my website hosting the link, so I would reach out to the university direct for the original consultation and any updates they may have.
LikeLike