Baby Charlie Gard is to have his life support switched off today.

Conflicting reports over the decision have surfaced. Some sources suggest that the parents have been rushed into the decision, whilst a hospital spokesperson has allegedly told the media that there was ‘no rush’ to switch off Charlie’s life support.

The parents also requested that Charlie spend his last night with them at home or in a hospice, a request which has been denied by Great Ormond Street Hospital. Whilst the hospital has refused to comment on the reasons behind refusing to allow Charlie to leave his room at Great Ormond Street, it is likely that the refusal relates to concerns over the Gards fleeing the country to take Charlie to America for the pioneering treatment they were denied in court.

The concerns may have been sparked from a similar case involving a young boy with a brain tumour called Ashya King, whose parents wanted to try alternative treatment for their son, and who fled the UK to Spain to take him to a clinic offering the medical support they wanted after a hospital in England blocked them from doing so. (Ashya got the treatment, and made a full recovery).

Our thoughts and prayers are with Charlie and his parents today. Researching Reform, like many others in the UK and around the world, will be mourning a loss we have come to feel as our own.

The world stands by your side.

UPDATE: As of this afternoon, Great Ormond Street hospital has allowed Charlie’s parents to spend more time with him, and won’t be switching off his life support today.

The European Court considering the case of Charlie Gard, a baby with a rare medical condition who has been on life support for most of his young life, has turned down an appeal launched by his parents to keep him alive. 

The European Court Of Human Rights concluded that Charlie was most likely in pain, and to continue life support and experimental treatment would cause Charlie significant harm with no prospect of success. The Court has also lifted the interim measure it put in place which would have kept Charlie on life support until 11 July. It is likely that life support will be switched off in the near future.

We cannot imagine what Charlie’s parents must be feeling. At the very least we hope the hospital will ensure that both mother and father have the best counselling and support available as they go through this devastating moment.

We remain in awe of the dedication, love and care they gave Charlie. Their courage and determination in the face of pessimistic medical views, and their unswerving optimism will never be forgotten. Their strength and dignity inspired a nation.

As a mark of respect we will not be posting anything on the site tomorrow.

Photo: Featureworld

Hot off the heels of its latest report on the state of child protection in the UK, the NSPCC is asking the government to launch a UK wide, in depth study looking at current levels of child abuse.

The call comes after its report highlighted a significant increase in the reporting of different types of child abuse, but a less clear picture on what this means about the prevalence, origins and motivations behind these abuses.

The key findings are added below:

• In recent years there has been an increase in emotional abuse as a reason for children being on a child protection plan or register in England and Wales, and increasing numbers of contacts to the NSPCC helpline about the issue.
• There has been an increase in public reporting of child abuse. In 2016/17 the NSPCC helpline responded to its highest ever number of contacts.
• There have also been increases in police-recorded child sexual offences and indecent image offences across the UK and increases in child cruelty and neglect offences in all UK nations except Scotland.
• The last decade has also seen increased numbers of children on child protection plans and registers and increased numbers of looked after children in the UK.
• But, without a new survey of child maltreatment prevalence we lack a clear picture of the extent of child abuse and neglect today. That’s why we are calling on the UK Government to commission a new UK-wide study.

The table of contents is also interesting:

1. Child homicides recorded by police includes the offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide
2. Child mortality deaths by assault, neglect and undetermined intent
3. Child suicides
4. Number of recorded sexual offences against children
5. Number of recorded cruelty and neglect offences 
6. Self-reported prevalence of abuse and neglect
7. Counselling sessions with Childline
8. Contacts with the NSPCC helpline
9. Online harm 
10. Violent incidents experienced by 10 to 15 year olds Crime survey for England and Wales
11. Crime survey for England and Wales: Experiences of abuse in childhood
12. Referrals to social services
13. Children in need
14. Children in the child protection system
15. Composition of child protection plans and child protection registers 
16. Re-registration onto child protection registers or returning to a child protection plan
17. How long are children subject to child protection plans or on child protection registers
18. Looked after children 
19. Proportion of looked after children who have three or more placements during the year
20. Child trafficking
21. Public attitudes to child abuse and neglect
22. Glossary

Whilst some of this data is not new, many of the stats are still shocking. We have yet to read this report in full, but in the meantime do let us know what you think.

Many thanks to Jonny Matthew for sharing this report on Twitter, which is where we found it.

A former Labour Minister has called on social workers to play a much bigger part in boosting the life chances of children and families they work with, in a speech delivered recently at a social work training event.

The speech Alan Milburn makes highlights how little he understands the social work sector and the enormous pressure it is under, and the economic landscape that is currently suffocating working families. That Alan is also chair of the social mobility commission throws into sharp relief just how serious this is.

During the event Alan makes some key points. He says the profession is one of the biggest “under leveraged assets” when it comes to supporting children and families. Whilst the sector is suffering from budget cuts and a dwindling lack of resources, it has also had its fair share of funding which it squandered through poor management, well meaning but ultimately toxic financial incentives and the kind of breath taking incompetence that has resulted in serious case review after serious case review. The social work sector is not an under leveraged asset, it is a barren one which needs to be rebuilt with better training programmes, a solid infrastructure rolled out nationwide and a central mandate that demands only the highest standards from its professionals. All of this has to happen before we can even think about giving the child protection sector greater powers to support parents in need of help.

Alan also told social workers that they have a part to play in “trying to nudge and encourage and support parents to do the basics of parenting. To foster their kids’ abilities, to read to them, to provide some basic opportunities.”

Milburn places the inequalities children from vulnerable and low income families face squarely on the shoulders of their parents. This is a basic mistake which you wouldn’t expect a politician or chair of a mobility committee to make. It’s already widely established that parents who fit into these demographics are usually under enormous strain themselves, and have no time to read to their children for example, often working two or more jobs and worrying first about the basics like feeding their families. This is a point Milburn touches on but he seems blithely unaware that a lack of food in the home isn’t borne out of parents’ laziness to feed their children but an inability to make ends meet thanks to austerity cuts, and politicians more interested in sound bites and scamming votes.

Social workers should not be fooled by this thinly veiled attempt to get them on side. The profession can be a force for good, but it will have to do this through internal reflection and not be lulled into a false sense of security by schmoozing former cabinet ministers whose main interest in the social work sector and its professionals is purely political.

A bill raising the minimum age for marriage from 14 to 17 in New York has been signed into law by Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo.

Human Rights Watch campaigned vigorously for the move,  resulting in a law being passed in New York State today, which bans all marriage of children under the age of 17, and allows 17 year olds to marry only with permission from a judge.

Website Unchained At Last offers the following stats on child marriage in the state:

“3,853 children were married in New York between 2000 and 2010, many with significant age differences. In 2011 alone, a 14-year-old married a 26-year-old in New York, and a 15-year-old married someone age “35 to 39.” A 15-year-old was wed to a 28-year-old. Another 15-year-old was wed to a 25-year-old. All those marriages required approval from New York judges.”

Whilst there is some debate over whether laws raising the age of consent for marriage will protect all vulnerable children being forced into unions against their will, largely because a significant portion of child marriages around the world happen informally and go undetected as a result, the new law will act as a deterrent and provide much needed protection against adults seeking to marry vulnerable minors, often in order to traffick them.

The legislation is a wonderful start to tackling child marriage in the state. The next step for New York will be to reach out to those communities still sanctioning child marriage and engage with them, so that a dialogue around the practice can begin and new ways of nurturing children within those communities are developed.

Human Rights Watch has published an excellent summary on the day’s events, which you can read here. Many congratulations to HRW and other organisations who fought tirelessly for this new law.