• About
    • Privacy Policy
  • GSW
  • Guide To Making A Subject Access Request
  • In Dad’s Shoes
    • An Overview
    • Invitation
    • Media
    • Photos
    • Press Release
    • Soft Launch
    • Speeches
    • Summary
  • Media Coverage
  • Parliamentary Debates
  • Voice of the Child Podcasts

Researching Reform

Researching Reform

Monthly Archives: April 2015

Free Range Children Have Bird Brains For Parents

16 Thursday Apr 2015

Posted by Natasha in child welfare

≈ 12 Comments

The recent case of the Meitiv children aged ten and six, whose parents allowed them to walk to a park near their home without adult supervision and who have since found themselves charged with neglect over the practice, has divided parents and the general public both in America and here in Britain.

The Meitivs, both scientists, practice free range parenting, a form of parenting which gives children total independence from infancy. As part of this practice, the Meitiv’s children have been walking regularly to and from their local park, which is an eighth of a mile from their home. The children were alerted to the local authorities after a man out walking became concerned for their welfare. It is not known from what age the children have been allowed to walk around their neighbourhood without adult supervision.

Parents around the globe are up in arms over the state’s interference with this family’s way of life. The Meitivs themselves have now hired an attorney and are looking to sue for the intrusion – they have had to sign a parenting plan saying they will not let their children walk alone – though who they are going to sue is not yet clear. It’s a messy state of affairs, which calls into question the extent to which the state should be allowed to interfere with family life and the boundaries of child neglect.

For us, though, it’s a no brainer.

Whilst parents should have the ability, and freedom, to take care of their children and bring them up in a way which they consider appropriate and in their best interests, there are always going to be instances where a parent’s judgement falls foul of basic common sense and puts their children’s wellbeing at risk. For us, free range parenting is one of those exceptions.

It is pseudo-intellectual clap trap, spouted by the same parents who’ll tell you that their two year old speaks fluent Chinese and learned to handle a Brazilian wandering spider blindfold, whilst listening to Baby Mozart. And we’ve heard it all before. These are the parents that will insist children need to be toughened up, that they need to be pushed out of the nest – that they mustn’t be wrapped up in cotton wool, and God forbid we should watch them like a hawk in the playground as they swing upside down like crazed monkeys on LSD.

But are these parents really doing their kids a favour, or is it just pure vanity?

There is no denying that introducing the element of risk is necessary and important for children. It teaches them boundaries, situational assessment, trial and error and develops their sense of awareness. Most of us would agree that the level and type or risk employed depends on the age of our children and what they can handle as growing individuals. And yet, one thing no one can argue is that a ten year old and a six year old walking around alone have no ability to defend themselves from child abusers or murderers.

It’s at this point that the free range parent will stand up and tell you with confidence, “Ah, yes, but the likelihood of that happening is so small, that it’s not even relevant.”

And that, for us, is the most bizarre argument for free range parenting there is. Even if there was only a microscopic chance of our children meeting that fate out and about on their own, we simply wouldn’t take it. Why? Because we don’t need to.

Children can develop and gain their independence without being thrust into the outside world before they’re physically and mentally able to take it on. They can be taught to think for themselves and be accountable for their actions in safe spaces, where they can grow and flourish, without being placed in situations which harbour the potential to harm them.

When children are good and ready to go out and walk the perhaps not so mean streets of a city or town on their own, they will have ample opportunity to hone their independence then, without being placed in environments which could get the better of them, before they acquire the necessary survival skills. Most ten year olds can’t fend off a fully grown adult, and there is no reason why they should have to. If free range parents must let their children walk the streets alone, they could at least walk behind them undetected, and make sure they’re safe.

When the Meitiv’s children didn’t return home that day at 6pm (they were being held by the police who were trying to locate the parents), we wonder what must have gone through their minds. Were their children lost or dead? Was the free range parenting really worth it? Given that they’re now fighting to uphold their parenting technique, we can only assume that they’ve let the horrifying possibilities fade away, and instead have chosen to ignore them. And that in itself, is utterly daft.

parenting

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Question It!

13 Monday Apr 2015

Posted by Natasha in Question It

≈ 13 Comments

Welcome to another week. Today is a special day for the nation’s Statutory Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, as Justice Lowell Goddard officially takes her position as Chair for the Inquiry.

Our question for you this week, then is just this: if there was one piece of advice you could offer Justice Goddard, what would it be?

face_question_mark

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

New Zealand Crunches Big Data to Prevent Child Abuse – Or Perpetuate Prejudice?

11 Saturday Apr 2015

Posted by Natasha in child abuse, child welfare, Research, Researching Reform

≈ 3 Comments

This just in.

A call center in New Zealand dedicated to child welfare matters is collating data on families in order to see if patterns can be spotted, and child abuse prevented as a result. 

Whilst New Zealand is at the cutting edge of child welfare policy, the use of data to effectively predict the likelihood of future harm is something we should all be concerned about.

A uniform system which starts and ends with stats, raises several problems. The first is that we have no definitive data which confirms that factors like poverty, lack of education and family histories of violence are always predictors for child abuse. It also reinforces unhelpful and unkind stereotypes which will filter into the welfare system and become entrenched in its day-to-day ethos, bolstering stigmas and allowing the view that these families are somehow inferior, to endure.

Those families that do not ‘fit the profile’, also risk going unspotted by child welfare professionals. If poverty and a lack of education increase the risk of abuse in a home, then an abundance of resources and access to high quality education could also increase that risk by further enabling abusers through access to such resources. That is because highly manipulative behaviours, present in abusers, exist at every level of society, with stress perhaps rather than background, being the underpinning commonality which joins demographics together. Any future research would need to focus on stress and its impact on individuals, rather than the more obvious demarcations of class and opportunity.

Research tells us that social workers already have a natural bias towards families who are known to them as a result of parenting difficulties they’ve faced in the past. Bias is part of the human condition, persistent in all of us, and even affects those who we think are immune to it by virtue of their education or intellect, like judges for example,  but high quality training is required, even for judges, in order to ensure that it does not taint reasoning and lead to miscarriages of justice.

That this new initiative seeks to target areas of support rather than apportion blame and remove children from parents in the first instance, is at least a positive step. The initiative – that of using the collected data to try to preempt abuse – hopes to offer families at risk support, such as parenting programmes. The reality though, is that if stress is in fact the underlying cause of abuse in many homes, parenting classes are not likely to have any meaningful impact on preventing abuse.

The article also offers some interesting further reading on the topic:

  • Predictive Modeling – Potential Application in Prevention Services and;
  • Vulnerable Children – CAN ADMINISTRATIVE DATA BE USED TO IDENTIFY CHILDREN AT RISK OF ADVERSE OUTCOMES?

Whilst it must be right to use data and analyse it in order to build the best child welfare system possible, caution must be a necessary ally in ensuring that any findings are not set in stone and left to operate on their own, but are combined with professional expertise and the discretion of highly experienced and properly trained child welfare teams.

cropped-banner-page0001.jpg

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Should We Remove Newborns From Convicted Killers?

10 Friday Apr 2015

Posted by Natasha in child welfare

≈ 3 Comments

That is the suggestion that has been made by South Australian Coroner Mark Johns, who has this week been presiding over a tragic inquest involving the death of Chloe Valentine, a four-year old girl, at the hands of her parents.

The remark was made after Johns felt that not enough was being done to protect children from harm, and his growing concern that children’s rights may be being gazumped by the rights of dysfunctional parents. He has called for the Families Government Department in South Australia to be overhauled, which many feel is at breaking point, to ensure that children can be properly protected from unfit parents.

Johns’ most controversial recommendation, and the one which has divided professionals, refers to changing the state’s law to ensure that babies born to parents previously convicted of killing their children (by criminal neglect, murder or manslaughter) are automatically placed in government care.

It will then be up to the parents to prove they are fit to care for their children.

If enacted as law, this move could have the potential to set precedent in Australia, and perhaps even others parts of the world like the UK, which tends to follow Australia’s lead on child welfare matters. In light of horrific British cases like the Natalie Allman case, which saw a mother who was almost killed by her partner in front of their twins being forced to write to him about their children’s progress whilst serving his prison sentence, and effectively having to engage their children in this exercise, it’s easy to see how such a measure might be welcomed here. The case resonated around the world, and although different to the Chloe Valentine case (the father attacked Ms Allman, rather than the children, directly), many questioned whether this father’s right to contact with his children had usurped their right to be protected from harm. And, ultimately, whether he was fit to be a parent.

However some took the view that upon serving his jail time, the father in this case may be able to reform and could, with support, parent his children competently. And that is the argument child welfare professionals in Australia, like National Children’s Commissioner Megan Mitchell is making. Mitchell takes the view that a blanket recommendation to remove children automatically in this way, does not take into account the details of each case and could also negatively impact the children involved, if they were to be deprived of a parent who had the capacity to reform.

Mitchell recommends instead, a system of increased early surveillance in instances where a parent has been deemed unfit.

Bravehearts founder Hetty Johnston though, disagrees, and would like to see Johns’ recommendation taken one step further – her concern relates to paedophiles, and registered sex offenders. Hetty would like anyone who has demonstrated a capacity to harm children in any way to be put on a watch list.

One thing all the professionals who have so far commented on this recommendation agree upon, is that there needs to be a re-focusing of rights generally, so that children’s rights come before anyone else’s, including the rights of the parents involved.

So what do you think? Should parents who have been convicted of killing their children have any further children born to them automatically removed from their care?

Chloe Valentine

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Child Abuse Inquiry Responds To Concerns Over Separate Panel For Survivors

09 Thursday Apr 2015

Posted by Natasha in child abuse inquiry

≈ 5 Comments

In a new update on the Inquiry website, officials have responded to the recent concerns by survivors and child welfare professionals surrounding the decision not to include survivors and victims of abuse on the central panel but to create a separate panel for them.

The reasons given for the creation of a separate panel (to be called the Victims and Survivors Consultative Panel, or VSCP) include concerns about legal challenges where survivors or victims may have a direct interest in an area or case relating to the Inquiry, which is forbidden under S.9 (1)(a) of the Inquiries Act 2005, and the view that one or two survivors on the central panel would not reflect the diversity of opinion and background of existing survivors and victims.

The Inquiry is also now calling for survivors and victims who wish to be part of the VSCP, to come forward. The process allows people to nominate survivors and victims, and put themselves forward, too.

So, what do you make of the latest update? Do you think the Inquiry’s reasons for a separate survivors’ panel are sound or do you feel they’re simply spinning the rules and lines of reasoning to create an apartheid?

Lowell Goddard, Chair for the Statutory Inquiry Into Child Abuse

Lowell Goddard, Chair for the Statutory Inquiry Into Child Abuse

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Buzz

09 Thursday Apr 2015

Posted by Natasha in The Buzz

≈ 1 Comment

These are the news stories that we feel should be above the radar:

  • Children’s rights celebrated with 11,000 self-portraits for the ACT’s Right Here Right Now project
  • Divorce by Facebook: New York woman gets OK to file papers online

  • Survey: Is the child protection system at breaking point?

Buzz

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

New Guidance On Legal Aid For Victims Of Domestic Violence And Abuse

07 Tuesday Apr 2015

Posted by Natasha in Domestic Violence

≈ 4 Comments

The Legal Aid Agency have recently issued some guidelines on accessing legal aid for victims of domestic violence and abuse.

You can access the guidelines here.

The guidelines explain what kind of evidence can be produced, (you now need to show such evidence if you wish to claim for legal aid support), how you can go about getting that evidence and what to do once you have it.

For information on legal aid generally, please see the following:

  • Legal aid – overview
  • What you can get
  • Eligibility
  • How to claim

legal aid

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

David and Samantha Cameron – Politics At What Price?

07 Tuesday Apr 2015

Posted by Natasha in child welfare

≈ 5 Comments

It is election time, and our party leaders are doing everything they can to rouse the troops and blaze their campaign trails. That the televised leaders debate diminished rather than bolstered each party’s campaigns means Miliband, Farage and Cameron amongst others, will be looking to bounce back from their lacklustre performances this week. And although we have no doubt Farage and Miliband will offer equally galling comeback strategies, it is David Cameron’s latest election stunt which we find unacceptable, and a step too far.

Whilst we have every sympathy for the Camerons losing their oldest son, we think this piece by David’s wife Samantha is nothing more than a vulgar prostitution of their child’s memory.

The piece, in which Mrs Cameron talks about the pain of losing her severely disabled son, is clearly designed to appeal to traditional Conservative voters. It focuses on stereotypical gender divides (not as a personal choice but as an implied universal directive), and uses the worst kind of manipulation, both for its thin veneer and the Cameron’s use of their son’s death to gain leverage with families and in particular those who have disabled children. Published just before the election, which coincides roughly with the anniversary of their son’s death, and with her husband’s leadership in jeopardy, it can be no accident that Samantha has chosen to speak about Ivan for the first time, now.

That the article is filled with photographs designed to send out various subliminal, not so subtle messages, is in itself embarrassing. A large photo of their deceased son, Ivan. A photo of David kissing Ivan. A family photo where David is pushing a pram. A photo of the family attending a Christian service. A photo of the Camerons at their late son’s funeral – there appears to be no end to the display of private emotion they are willing to share to secure votes.

The photos tick all the right conservative boxes. David is a family man, a sensitive man, a religious man, a man who, it would seem, feels as deeply as the rest of us, and an excellent father. The last photo, which shows the Camerons with their daughter (the one they left in the pub), hovers over a statement which their daughter allegedly made about the now infamous incident – “I’m on chapter five of Daddy, How Your Life as Prime Minister Has Affected Me. Chapter two is when you left me in the pub.”

That Mrs Cameron says her daughter continues to tease her father about this incident, and chooses to put that down to her daughter’s sharp sense of humour, rather than down to a traumatic experience their daughter appears to be reliving regularly, perhaps says more about this desperate attempt to spin a bad PR incident better than it does about the Cameron’s parenting skills.

And yet many would not have judged the Camerons for this incident. All parents make mistakes. But it is David’s singular lack of tolerance when it comes to other parents around the country (remember his myopic take on single fathers?) that makes it so hard for any of us to buy this pre-election propaganda. And to use their late son’s memory as a call to action is beyond redemption.

If we were to assume for even a moment that this was just a badly timed exercise, in which Mrs Cameron felt the need to speak out about her loss, perhaps even to offer a supporting voice to other parents who have experienced the same (though there is no evidence of that in the article), any PR company worth their salt would have told Mrs Cameron not to publish her thoughts during the campaign. (Even if she really did just want to do an Angelina Jolie and share a very private affair in order to highlight the issue for the greater good).

The voting public is not as naive as it once was. With a greater ability to question party politics thanks to online debate and social media, there isn’t a great deal which escapes the voters’ attention today. And now, having underestimated the general public, the Camerons can look forward to other voices condemning their choice to use their late son’s demise as a way to pull heart-strings, and votes in.

In the game of politics, it can seem as if everything, and everyone, is a pawn. Mrs Cameron’s piece has not solidified her husband’s status as a caring and sincere human being. It has achieved the very opposite.

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Double Standards In Language Minimize The Sexual Abuse Of Males

05 Sunday Apr 2015

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 3 Comments

We feel a little odd writing this, but we have a news item here which we feel will make our male readers rather happy. Not because it involves the sexual abuse of males, of course, but because it is an article which highlights a double standard which effectively minimises female on male abuse. And that double standard can be found in the way we use language to describe women who have sex with boys.

The article, written by Jim Struve, a clinical social worker and co Chair of Male Survivor, starts by referring to a case in which a school teacher in America has allegedly had sex with three of her pupils, all boys. The item talks about the use of the word “relationship” when talking about this kind of abuse and how language influences our response to trauma. The piece also tells us that 1 in 4.5 males will experience some form of sexual victimization during their lifetime, and that this often occurs during childhood.

It’s an interesting read, which highlights the sometimes unconscious ways in which we describe sexual relationships.

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Child Abuse Inquiry: Chair Under Fire For Marginalising Victims Of Abuse

05 Sunday Apr 2015

Posted by Natasha in child abuse inquiry

≈ 6 Comments

Last month, whilst being questioned by the Home Affairs Committee, Lowell Goddard, new Chair for the Child Abuse Inquiry tentatively suggested the creation of a separate panel for survivors and victims of child abuse. She also explained her desire to create a separate panel to that of the core Inquiry panel – and it is this reasoning that has this week ignited a new row.

Although Justice Goddard offered up the suggestion of a standalone panel for survivors and victims in order to give them a voice within the Inquiry, she also clarified her decision not to integrate them onto the core panel. The reason she gave was that she felt they would not be impartial investigators, and therefore a potential source of difficulty for the Inquiry.

This morning victims have lashed out at Goddard and Home Secretary Theresa May for what they feel is a marginalisation of their role in an Inquiry which needs them and a decision which, they argue, is prejudicial. Currently, survivors and victims are not prevented from acting as judges or jurors in abuse cases under British Law so why have they been excluded from the central Inquiry panel?

The previous panel, which was an integrated board that included survivors of abuse, was disbanded after months of internal rows and a very public altercation between legal counsel to the Inquiry Ben Emmerson QC and panel member Sharon Evans, a survivor of abuse herself. Graham Wilmer, another former panel member and a survivor of abuse, was also the subject of criticism after an email he sent to a victim of abuse left the victim feeling highly distressed. What followed was a very visible change in panel makeup and background – the new Inquiry panel is heavily dominated by legal minds and of course, no survivors in sight.

Goddard’s comment about survivors’ objectivity at the Committee meeting last month was telling. Given past embarrassing scraps amongst panel members, legal counsel to the Inquiry, Emmerson, who at the time was effectively Inquiry Chair for procedural and other purposes, may have been tempted to throw his new found weight into the debate on the creation of a new panel and suggest a lawyer-dominated and survivor free board to minimise conflicts and disagreements. That action, regardless of its provenance, has now cost the Inquiry dearly.

A campaign to force a U-turn on the proposed membership criteria for the Inquiry Panel has been signed by over 200 survivors, whistleblowers and child protection professionals. It has also been backed by Michael Mansfield QC who at one stage was the survivor’s and victims’ favourite to hold the position of Inquiry Chair. In an open letter to the Home Secretary, the group expresses dismay at current Chair, Goddard’s view that survivors and victims lack sufficient objectivity to be quasi-judicial members of the Inquiry.

The Inquiry must get a handle on survivors and their culture before it is too late. For Home Office officials to still take the view, after these many months, that survivors and victims of abuse are at best a homogeneous group and at worst, dysfunctional and disruptive cogs in their investigative machinery, is a mistake. The secret to a succesful panel does not lie in excluding survivors, but in creating a panel with excellent chemistry, and that must include the right survivors for the task at hand.

Lowell Goddard, Chair for the Statutory Inquiry Into Child Abuse

Lowell Goddard, Chair for the Statutory Inquiry Into Child Abuse

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts
Newer posts →

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 8,452 other subscribers

Contact Researching Reform

Huff Post Contributer

For Litigants in Person

Child Welfare Debates

April 2015
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  
« Mar   May »

Children In The Vine : Stories From The Family Justice System

Categories

  • Adoption
  • All Party Parliamentary Group on Family Law and The Court of Protection
  • Articles
  • Big Data
  • Bills
  • Case Study
  • child abuse
  • child abuse inquiry
  • child welfare
  • Children
  • Children In The Vine
  • Circumcision
  • Civil Partnerships
  • Consultation
  • Conversations With…
  • Corporal Punishment
  • CSA
  • CSE
  • Data Pack
  • Domestic Violence
  • Encyclopaedia on Family and The Law
  • event
  • Family Law
  • Family Law Cases
  • FGM
  • FOI
  • forced adoption
  • Foster Care
  • Fudge of the Week
  • Fultemian Project
  • Huffington Post
  • Human Rights
  • IGM
  • Inquiry
  • Interesting Things
  • Interview
  • Judge of the Week
  • Judges
  • judicial bias
  • Law to lust for
  • legal aid
  • LexisNexis Family Law
  • LIP Service
  • LIPs
  • Marriage
  • McKenzie Friends
  • MGM
  • News
  • Notes
  • petition
  • Picture of the Month
  • Podcast
  • Question It
  • Random Review
  • Real Live Interviews
  • Research
  • Researching Reform
  • social services
  • social work
  • Spotlight
  • Stats
  • Terrorism
  • The Buzz
  • The Times
  • Troubled Families Programme
  • Twitter Conversations
  • Update
  • Voice of the Child
  • Voice of the Child Podcast
  • Westminster Debate
  • Who's Who Cabinet Ministers
  • Your Story

Recommended

  • Blawg Review
  • BlogCatalog
  • DaddyNatal
  • DadsHouse
  • Divorce Survivor
  • Enough Abuse UK
  • Family Law Week
  • Family Lore
  • Flawbord
  • GeekLawyer's Blog
  • Head of Legal
  • Just for Kids Law
  • Kensington Mums
  • Law Diva
  • Legal Aid Barristers
  • Lib Dem Lords
  • Lords of The Blog
  • Overlawyered
  • PAIN
  • Paul Bernal's Blog
  • Public Law Guide
  • Pupillage Blog
  • Real Lawyers Have Blogs
  • Story of Mum
  • Sue Atkins, BBC Parenting Coach
  • The Barrister Blog
  • The Magistrate's Blog
  • The Not So Big Society
  • Tracey McMahon
  • UK Freedom of Information Blog
  • WardBlawg

Archives

  • Follow Following
    • Researching Reform
    • Join 813 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Researching Reform
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: