Welcome to another week.

Sir Ernest Ryder, the Senior President of Tribunals, who is also a judge in the Court of Appeal, gave a speech last week, in which he said that the family courts’ focus must be on safeguarding children’s best interests, and that better training was needed for judges.

Ryder also questioned the system’s current adversarial approach, which has historically led to a shift in focus away from children’s needs, and more on individual performances of lawyers representing parties. On this point, he observed that an adversarial approach ‘is challenged in the context of family justice with its more inquisitorial process, where the focus must be, on ‘safeguarding children by securing their best interests’.

Whilst Ryder notes that family courts are increasingly trying to use inquisitorial avenues to process cases, the Family Court still remains largely adversarial, from the processes used, to the working, day-to-day culture inside the courts. The discussion about these two models though, is not new.

Researching Reform started the debate around whether the family courts should remain adversarial, or switch to an inquisitorial model in 2010, where we attempted to offer a balanced view of both. The two systems are not always mutually exclusive, with neither being completely immune to bias, error, or abuse of power. Both models can also share similar characteristics, and unsurprisingly, a more inquisitorial model would hand judges far greater powers than they have at present, which may explain judicial support for an inquisitorial system.

Our question this week, then, is just this: would you like to see the Family Court move away from an adversarial system, to an inquisitorial one? 

Welcome to another week.

April is always Child Abuse Prevention Month here at Researching Reform, and this year, we are going to share our Top Ten ‘How To’s’ which focus on stopping abuse before it starts.

1. Economics: A functional society that wants to reduce incidents of child abuse has to be one where children get the best possible start in life. It’s not a coincidence that most ‘at risk’ children are vulnerable children long before they’re victims of abuse.
2. Education: The vast majority of child abuse happens within a home setting, carried out at the hands of relatives or family friends. Raising awareness around the different types of abuse, why they occur and what can be done to stop these abuses is crucial.
3. Excellence in training: The social work sector needs to start raising the bar. One of our original Bug Bears, social work courses and training sessions continue to work to a standard the sector calls the ‘good enough’ principle. Much of day to day practice though, is nowhere near good enough. Either revise the definition and content of the courses to ensure that good enough is good enough, or strive for something far more exciting: the best practice standard. If the sector gets this right, the label really won’t matter, but the results will matter to vulnerable children everywhere. (It’s also the only way this sector can rebuild its reputation. Hey, if it was easy, everybody would be doing it).
4. Everybody Counts: From agencies working with each other and not against each other, to birth parents playing an inclusive role in an adopted child’s life wherever possible, the idea that everybody counts in the child protection ecosystem, is a huge one. If we don’t acknowledge that every individual has something important to offer, and go back and constantly revise those roles to ensure they’re working in the best interests of every child, the system will keep on failing.
5. Ethical Practice: The system can’t ignore the fact that it is suffering under the weight of unethical behaviours and routine law breaking by professionals working in it. We have to take stock of, and revise those functions, before we can put an end to what’s become blatant defiance of policy and legislation designed to protect vulnerable children in the first place.
6. Experts: As a minimum, the government should pass legislation that requires every practicing social worker to register with an independent regulatory body. All experts working with the family courts should also be vetted by an independent organisation tasked with checking backgrounds, qualifications and practice history.
7. Explain Everything: Doctors and surgeons don’t expect their patients to speak the language of medicine when they advise or operate on them, and vulnerable families should not be expected to understand legalease, or be shut out from life changing decisions which affect them if they don’t. It’s time the family justice system set everything down in plain English.
8. Equality: vulnerable families should be treated with the respect and dignity that everyone else inside the system expects to receive. We are all here to support these families, not the other way around.
9. Evidence: A proper system for gathering evidence, filing it and ensuring that decisions are only made off the back of genuine, high quality data has to be implemented. A social worker spending 5 minutes with a child and then writing a report which is designed to send that child into care should never be allowed. We have the scientific tools at our disposal to get some truly powerful insights into what children really need, let’s use them.
10. Efficiency: managers of every department should be required to look at their department’s working processes to see what works and what doesn’t, with the sole aim of ensuring that vulnerable children are given the time and support they need. If that form you’re being asked to fill in is completely pointless and taking up time that could be spent talking to a vulnerable child and being there for them, flag it up. The more people who join together to speak up, the more of a difference you can make.

Our question this week then, is just this: what would be on your list? 

Welcome to your week.

In an article for The Express yesterday, Peter Saunders, founder of the National Association of People Abused In Childhood (NAPAC), has lashed out at the Church for failing to properly address child abuse within its churches and internal management structures.

Saunders, who was abused himself by two Catholic priests, also points out that child abusers are not always male, and that more needs to be done to raise awareness around this issue, as well as make it easier for male victims to come forward.

Victims of child abuse often find it very hard to open up about their experiences and access support, and this can sometimes be even more difficult for men who have been abused by women.

Our question this week, then, is just this: how would you help male victims of child abuse to come forward and find the help and support they need?

Welcome to another week.

As the government looks set to revamp the social work sector (again), different opinions about the child protection system in the UK are emerging.

Ray Jones, a professor of Social Work at Kingston University recently wrote a piece for The Guardian in which he says that the UK child protection system is praiseworthy and shouldn’t be subject to reform. Ray also claims that the UK has the safest child protection systems in the world.

Two days after Jones’ piece was published, the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew Davies, spoke to the BBC and called on the government to instigate a “thorough investigation” into councils, police and health bodies, after authorities failed to act in a case of severe child neglect. The children were discovered after a neighbour called the RSPCA, concerned about the welfare of cats inside the home.

Our question this week, then, is just this: do you think the child welfare system is in need of reform?

Welcome to another week.

Australia’s Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has asked every territory to compensate victims of non recent child sexual abuse, in a bid to address the horrors faced by survivors who were abused as children within state and religious institutions. The move comes after Australia’s own inquiry into child sexual abuse recommended that the country implement a nationwide redress scheme.

Under Australia’s initiative, territories can sign up to the scheme, which then automatically allows churches, charities and other institutions to sign up. As you might imagine, some organisations, like the Catholic Church in Melbourne, are dragging their heels over the sign up process. Turnbull and the Attorney-General have been pressuring the church to join the scheme. Australia’s PM says he will publicly shame those institutions that fail to sign up.

Our question this week, then, is this: would you like our own independent inquiry into child sexual abuse to make the same recommendation?

Welcome to another week.

A set of bills in the state of Michigan, in America, are being considered, which if passed would lead to the creation of a child abuse registry. The law would allow anyone convicted of child abuse in a criminal court to be placed on a child abuse registry for 5-10 years.

The proposed legislation, named Wyatt’s Law, would enable parents to search the registry to see if someone who has had contact with their child has a recent conviction for child abuse.

Wyatt was injured by abuse he suffered at the hands of his father’s girlfriend in 2013, when he was a toddler. Wyatt’s mother, Erica Hammell, had tried to access information relating to the girlfriend’s criminal record but wasn’t able to. Erica believes that if she had been able to get this information, she could have then gone to court to prevent contact between Wyatt and her former partner’s girlfriend.

Whilst the proposed legislation has received a great deal of support from several law makers, senators and lawyers, not everyone backs the idea. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a charity focused on protecting civil liberties in the US, is actively opposing the legislative proposals.

Our question this week then, is just this: do you think the UK could benefit from a child abuse register like this one, or, like the ACLU, do you feel this measure is a step too far?

Welcome to another week.

A report just published by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children of Alcoholics looks at the correlation between alcohol abuse by parents and child injuries. The APPG’s report concludes that 37% of child deaths and serious injuries through neglect are linked to parental drinking.

It’s a significant statistic, which should be on councils’ agendas to tackle, however a Freedom Of Information request revealed that over half of all councils still do not have a strategy to help children of alcoholics (COAs), almost all councils are cutting their budgets for alcohol and drug treatment services and in more than half of councils, referrals to alcohol treatment services are falling.

APPG Chair, Labour MP Liam Byrne has a helpful summary of all the relevant details on this report on his blog, including those involved in the document’s production.

The report has been published to coincide with International Children of Alcoholics Week which runs from 11th-17th February, 2018.

Liam’s web page offers key findings from the report:

• Between 2011-14, ‘Parental Alcohol Misuse’ (PAM) was implicated in 37% of cases involving the death or serious injury of a child through neglect or abuse in England.
• 18% of children reported feeling embarrassed by seeing their parent drunk, while 15% reported their bedtime routine had been disrupted as a result of their parents’ drinking.
• 61% of care applications in England involved misuse of alcohol and/or drugs.
• Children living with alcohol-dependent parents report feeling socially isolated, and are reluctant to seek help due to feelings of stigma, shame and guilt about not wanting to betray parents: Calls to helplines reveal their chronic worry and fear.
• Children may have to take on caring responsibilities for the affected parent or younger siblings which can negatively impact school attendance and homework.
• ‘Parental Alcohol Misuse’ leads to inconsistent and unpredictable parenting.

Liam explains that the report highlights several other very serious findings relating to children in these scenarios, which tell us that parental alcohol misuse showed increased risks of obesity, eating disorders, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, as well as a heightened risk of hospital admissions and injuries.

The APPG offers a nine point plan to tackle this issue:

1. Create a national strategy for COAs
2. Properly fund local support for COAs
3. Increase availability of support for families battling addiction to alcohol
4. Boost education and awareness for children
5. Boost education and training for those with a responsibility for children
6. Develop a plan to change public attitudes
7. Revise the national strategy to tackle alcoholism to focus on price and availability
8. Curtail the promotion of alcohol – especially to children
9. Take responsibility for reducing rates of alcoholism

Given that 61% of care applications involve parents who have alcohol or drug dependencies and that a significant number of children involved are at risk of injury or death, our question this week then, is just this: what would your plan be to tackle this issue?

The full report can be accessed here.

Welcome to another week.

As there are a few items of interest today, we’ve decided to set them down below, rather than offer you one story and invite you to comment. As always though, we would love to hear your thoughts:

• Independent review into the application of sharia law in England and Wales published – recommends the requirement for all Muslim couples to have a civil ceremony to protect the rights of wives.
• Divorce goes digital – courts test out online divorce applications
• Social media can make transition to adulthood easier for children in care, finds study

Welcome to another week.

The government is giving schools almost unfettered rights to search school pupils without consent, after it updated guidelines last week to reflect the move.

The changes allow school staff to search without consent for “any item banned by the school rules which has been identified in the rules as an item which may be searched for.” We tried to find this guidance online, but could not spot it.

The guidance was exposed in a Schools Week article on 19th January, which focused on the issue of energy soft drinks as a child protection issue, after schools around the country had imposed bans on the drinks on school property, with some searching students’ bags in order to enforce the policy.

The article comes after a public health nutritionist, government behaviour tsar and celebrity chef expressed concerns about the way these drinks affect children’s behaviour and health, and have called on the government to make it illegal to sell energy drinks to anyone under the age of 16.

Parents have reacted angrily to the new search policy, whilst schools have defended the move, saying that they have a right to confiscate anything they deem contraband.

The search policy, and the idea that energy drinks are a child protection issue raise several important questions:

• Is the current search and seize guideline within the law?
• What can schools constitute as ‘banned items’ and are there any human rights concerns surrounding this discretion?
• Will banning energy drinks in schools and making it illegal to sell them to anyone under the age of 16 be effective ways to encourage positive eating habits?
• Should the government ever be allowed to try to socially engineer food choices?

Our question this week then, is just this: what do you think?

Welcome to another week.

The police have criticised the nation’s child abuse inquiry (IICSA) for what they’re calling poor quality allegations, which the force are finding hard to investigate due to a lack of evidence and the anonymous nature of the complaints.

The cost of investigating these cases is at the centre of the row, with police departments around the country saying that they don’t have the resources to process the vast volume of allegations and requests for information. In 2017, around 2,300 referrals were made to Operation Hydrant via the inquiry.

The police are now asking inquiry staff to reduce the number of requests they make for information.

The inquiry now finds itself in a very difficult position. It is for allegation purposes no different to an individual who wishes to lodge details about a potential crime with the police, so the organisation is within its rights to refer cases without being held to a different submission standard. It is also entitled to refer cases anonymously. 

Nevertheless, given the vast amount of alleged victims that have come forward, the inquiry’s powers to access information which go beyond an ordinary individual’s, the police’s limited resources, and its large budget,  the IICSA could be considered to have a greater responsibility to help police forces put information together for each case.

Our question this week then, is just this: Do you think the Inquiry should have a more robust process in place to send on allegations to the police, or is it just fine for an investigative body to refer cases like an individual?