'Benefit cuts will not see more children taken into care; poverty does not equal neglect'
Cafcass is wrong, benefit cuts will not necessarily see more children taken into care,writes child protection consultant Joanna Nicolas
'There is a view being expressed in the media that because there are an increasing number of families living in poverty, more children are being taken into care because these families cannot provide for their children. This is, quite simply, incorrect. I have worked in countries where absolute poverty exists. In those countries you will have children put in homes, if it is an option, because their families cannot afford to feed them. Many parents have to make that terrible choice. In England that is not the case. We do not remove children because their parents cannot afford to care for them.
Under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 local authorities have a duty to assist children in need, children whose health, or development, may be significantly impaired without the provision of services by the local authority. Each council has a s.17 budget, which is not there to provide ongoing assistance, but should be used to assist families in times of crisis.
It may be that there is increasing focus on local authority child protection work and less on s.17 because of budget cuts. However, anyone who works with children will tell you that child neglect is the hardest category of abuse to evidence, whether it is the teacher who wants social care to be involved, or the social worker presenting the case to the family courts.
Does poverty equal neglect?
If a local authority asked to remove a child simply because the parents could not afford to feed their child, there would quite rightly be public outrage and the social workers would be castigated by the court. The child neglect cases that reach the court are the most extreme.
Families who are unwilling, or unable, to prioritise the basic needs their children have for food, clothing, shelter, or warmth. There is a strong correlation between poverty and neglect, but poverty does not equal neglect. There are many families who never come to the attention of the authorities because they make huge sacrifices themselves but their children do not suffer.
More children are being taken into care on the grounds of neglect because of recent tragic events and a shift in thinking. Following the terrible death of Peter Connollycame the Munro Review. In this, Eileen Munro stressed the importance of working to the child’s timescales, rather than giving parents endless chances. We've also had the introduction of the Family Drug and Alcohol Court, which again prioritises working to the child’s timescale.
So, the emphasis is changing. We are increasingly understanding the devastating effect of living with neglect. Historically neglect has been seen as a lesser form of abuse, but we're starting to understand it is every bit as damaging as other types of maltreatment. That's why we are seeing more neglect cases in court.'
- Joanna Nicolas is a child protection consultant, trainer and author
No comments:
Post a Comment