Safeguarding in Early Years - Coursework Example

ISSUES IN EARLY YEARS due: Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Safeguarding in early years 3 Introduction 3 Primary purposes of SCRs 4 Key principles of safeguarding 5 Working together from 2010 to 2013 5 What learning? 6 Lessons to improve safeguarding and promoting children welfare 8 Conditions for SRCs 8 Serious case review 8 Findings 9 Dangers 10 Research question 11 Children Needs 11 Conclusion 12 Bibliography 14 Safeguarding in early years Introduction Safeguarding is defined as shielding children from maltreatment, stop impairment of child’s development or health and making sure children are brought up in lifestyles that are consistent with the provision of effective and safe care (Reid & Burton 2013:2). Child protection and safeguarding are legal and moral expectations of all individuals who work with children (Moyles, Georgeson & Payler, and 2011:44). There is continued emphasis on early interventions and face to face activities with families and children to safeguard the welfare of children (Reid & Burton 2013:3). A good child protection system should be child centred meaning that everyone working towards child protection should identify children as individuals with rights including their rights to participate in decision-making about them in regards to their maturity and age (Wall 2010:1). It is acknowledged that family is the best place to bring up a child however there is need to balance the right of the child to be with birth family and their right to protection against neglect and abuse (Parton 2011: 854-875). Assisting families and children demands working with them hence the relationship between family, child and professionals influence the outcome of the help offered (Arthur 2005: 233-253). Helping children early is very effective because it minimises the time of adverse encounters and improves results (Brandon & Thoburn 2008: 365-377). A good protection system needs to offer a variety of responses due to the fact that the children’s need and circumstances are different (Manthorpe et. al, 2009: 1465-1480). A good professional practice is guided by the latest research and theory. Risk and uncertainty makeup child protection work, and, therefore, risk management reduces risks but do not eliminate them (Walker & Beckett 2011:32). The evaluation of the success of the child protection system internationally and locally is whether children are being given effective help (Munro 2011:23). This essay explores different case reviews that report on safeguarding in children in the United Kingdom. Primary purposes of SCRs Individuals and agencies are expected to learn lessons from case reviews that could help in creating ways through which they can work together or individually to promote and safeguard the welfare of children (Sidebotham, Brandon, Powell, Solebo & Koistenen 2010: 1). This would ensure that the changes expected result to children being protected from being likely to suffer from harm in future or suffering (Davies 2013: 233). A perfect example is in the article about what do serious case reviews achieve? The inquiry into the death of a seven-year-old Maria Colwell in 1973 led to the formalisation of inter-agency child protection committee. The inquiry also led to the creation of a child protection register (Stevens & Cox 2008: 1320-1336). It also opened up public inquiries into fatal and serious maltreatment more recently succeeded by statutory serious case reviews (SCRs) performed by local safeguarding children boards (Sidebotham 2011: para3). The effectiveness of the lessons learnt is evaluated on the following standards: • Are we identifying lessons about safeguarding children: • Are we implementing actions in safeguarding children? • Are we safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children? From this particular article, two researches of national death registration information have concluded that the rates and numbers of violent deaths in children and infants have dropped over the last thirty years implying that to some extent the most vulnerable young children are protected from neglect and abuse (Reder & Duncan 2004: 95-114). Key principles of safeguarding One of the principles of safeguarding implies that safeguarding is everyone responsibility and for it to be effective each organisation, and professional should carry out their tasks accordingly (Davies 2013:8). A report by Tickell on the early childhood years states “when lives and rights of children are at stake, there must be no silent witnesses” (Tickell 2011:37). The report indicated that children develop and learn best when they are happy, healthy and safe. It is the duty of all the parties involved with the children to ensure they are safeguarded and should be their priority (Tickell 2011:37). The second principle of safeguarding is that a child approach technique should be used to help to understand the needs and views of children to make the services effective (Potter 2007: 171-180). This is evident from a journal titled giving children a voice where it is stated that children have always been expected to interact in an adult frame of reference and they end up taking a lot of time time working out what is expected of them(Balen, Holroyd, Mountain & Wood 2000: 24-29). Consequently, children opinions and views are often neglected (Brown, Westlake & Ward 2012:37). The important point is that children vary considerably at one age and also in their development between one age and another (Lewis & Porter 2004: 191-197). The language utilised between children and adults need to be adapted to the linguistics understanding of the children (Hill 2005: 63). Working together from 2010 to 2013 Our focus is on the statement that when things go wrong there is need for a rigorous and objective analysis of what conspired and the causes, for important services to be improved and lessons to be learnt to minimise the risk of future harm to children (Davies 2013: 65). Partnership working is the foundation for early years services at a number of various levels in local neighbourhoods or areas, at family and child level, more tactically, across regional areas or local authority (Frost 2005:11-24). An innovative program is advancing preventative strategies for young people and children to reduce exposure to neglect and abuse respond to the idea of child-friendly communities (Pugh & Duffy 2013:28). The program is a community participating strategy aimed at preventing child abuse. The program was navigated in 2007 and 2010 in five southeast Queensland communities, and is now operating in parts of the Redlands region and Logan City region. To examine the advantages of the program, the Youth Research Centre located at the Queensland University of Technology, and the children were contracted to perform an evaluation-research in early 2013 (Gwinner 2013: para 1). In addition, institutions like Child Wellbeing Research Centre commissioned by the Department of Education in partnership with Thomas Coram Research Unit, the personal social services unit, the Centre for Child and Family Research,at Loughborough University carry out research and come up with recommendations in regard to safeguarding children (Munro & Lushey 2013: 7) What learning? It is outlined that there should be a culture of continuous improvement and learning in the organisations that work together to promote and safeguard the welfare of children (Edwards, Daniels, Gallagher, Leadbetter & Warmington 2009:64). The organisations promoting and safeguarding the welfare of children must identify the opportunities to draw on what promote and works good practice (Davies 2013 66 para 1). There remains a challenge in working together to safeguard children because it entails sound practices for children’s social workers and other professionals (Rogowski 2008: 17-28). The sound practices if well comprehended and utilised would effectively provide better quality lives and in some instances save lives in children (Herbert & Great Britain Parliament House of Commons 2009:10). From the perspective of Governance LSCBs their leaders need to effectively express guidance, legislation and policy into daily practice on the frontline of each service (Fitzgerald & Kay 2007:3). Every senior manager in all of the public services personal accountability should be fully understood (Cain 2001:247-258). The leaders of local services are supposed to identify the essential of early intervention and ensure that their offices support children once they are recognised to be in need to avoid a situation where the families are in trouble (Munro 2012:10). Frontline employees in every principle services have a difficult work (Hepworth 2010:3). Their tasks necessitate that they have the skills and knowledge, courage, ability and determination to handle intense conflicts (Owen 2006:183-194). This must be acknowledged in their case-loads, conditions of service, training and supervision, and it is important that their managers accept that anxiety compromises good practice (Force 2009:37). Staff assurance and supervision of good practice must be the basic requirements in each service and a lot need to be worked out to facilitate confidence and well-being of the staff that carry out these important tasks (Brown 2009: 38-50). The support of employees is essential in the duties of protecting children (Littlechild 2005: 61-82). To implement the support of staff, the local agencies and government should undertake the following: 1) The secretaries of State for Health, the Home Office and Children, Justice schools and families must work together in the environment of explicit strategic priorities for the protection of children for every of the key frontline services and make sure enough resources are put in place to deliver these priorities. 2) The Government must put greater drive and energy into the execution of change and support local improvement through initiating a powerful National Safeguarding Delivery Unit to answer directly to Cabinet through the children, young-people sub-committee and families to report once a year to Parliament. 3) The secretary of State for Children, families and schools should address the lack of the training and supply of frontline social workers. Lessons to improve safeguarding and promoting children welfare Social workers and other professionals need to comprehend who did what and the main reasons that led to organisations and individuals to behave as they did and to comprehend practice from the viewpoint of the organisations and individuals involved at the time rather than using hindsight (Davies 2013:66). In the article learning to reduce risk in child protection, Munro suggests that for a system approach to learning how to refine conceptualising child protection services as complex, adaptive systems and improve performance, necessitates the acceptance of the complexity of the task (Munro 2010: 1135-1151). It is also important to accept the function of professional judgement and the desire for feedback loops in the process where the low-level staffs are not afraid to talk honestly about their encounters, and the senior managers handle their feedback as valuable source of learning(Munro 2011:32). It is suggested that the contemporary strategies to prevent the risk in child protection are paradoxically making it difficult for professionals to learn how to protect young ones better (Kemshall 2010:1247-1262). There are three factors recognised as integrated in a manner they promote a culture where professional practice is implemented and excessively controlled: the blame culture, the performance management system, and the person-centred approach in investigating child deaths (Munro 2010: 1135-1151). Conditions for SRCs Serious case review In at least every two years analysis of serious case analysis in England is commissioned to determine trends, and themes so that lessons obtained from these cases as a whole can communicate practice and policy. For example, a study carried out between April 2003 and March 2005 where 161 reviews were analysed (Brandon 2008:1). The key findings and learning points: • A third of the 161 children were seriously injured, and two-thirds died. • 47% of the children were aged below one year, 25% were over eleven years and 9% were over 16%. Most of the older children were ‘hard to help’ and failed by agencies. • 12% of the children were listed in the child protection register, and 55% were well known to the children’s social care at the duration of the incident. • The families of the young children suffering physical abuse were in contact with universal services or adult services instead of children’s social care. • In families where the young ones endured long-tern neglect, the children’s social care failed to examine the past history and adopted the ‘start again syndrome’. • In cases where data was available, over half of the young ones had lived with parental mental ill health, domestic violence or parental substance misuse. The three problems mostly co-existed. Findings These findings of the children and their situations make painful and powerful revelation. Prevention of child injury and death caused by neglect or abuse is a priority to managers working with children and families and practitioners (Gilbert et. al, 2099:167-180). Nevertheless, the difficulty of family situations implies that even if the ‘whole picture’ of the family situations had been known, it was not possible to foretell the outcome for most of the children (Pennell & Francis 2005: 666-692). Whilst most of these cases may be unpredictable and working with risk and uncertainty at the centre of work with families and children, in most analysis there were many childhood hardships that were not familiar to practitioners (Macdonald, G., & Macdonald, K. 2010: bcq041). Awareness of these adversaries and the manner in which they had influence on family life would have assisted professionals’ comprehension of the children’s circumstances (Bentovim, Cox, Miller & Pizzey 2009:14). To be able to comprehend the risks of harm that children face, professionals must be motivated to be curious and think systematically and critically. Understanding the process in which different factors interact to protect from harm or cause expanded risks of harm to the young ones is an important step in this way (Stevens & Cox 2008: 1320-1336). Most of the cases families were not recognised by adult services and children’s services; hence the whole families should be a priority for those working in adult services (Force 2008: 7-11). The case review studies recognised not only misunderstanding and confusion of threshold but also self-absorption among agencies with suitable criteria for services contrary to primary concern the children with whom they were assisting (Brandon et. al, 2008: 313-330). A major test for the effectiveness of the Local Safeguarding Children Boards will be the degree to which they are able to correct the problems with thresholds (Elrod 2001: 495-551). Despite the fact that parental mental illness, substance misuse and domestic violence were common in this study there were no visible casual association between the potentially problematic parental conduct and serious injury or child death (Brandon 2008:1-2). Dangers It is not safe to learn from one child’s maltreatment to stop the abuse of another because professionals concentrate with the needs of their particular group which differs from others (Cleaver, Unell & Aldgate 2011:204). Mostly neglect, lack of consistency nurturing home surroundings and abuse is the source of attachment problems (Iwaniec 2006:3). Moreover, when children suffer from emotional hurt and pain can cause attachment problems (Perry 2001: 1-17.). It is evident that healthy emotional relationships among family members give children the important basis for a triumphant development of self and the potential to interact and relate with others (Icick 2013: 522-528). Children with attachment disorder view the world as an unsafe place and develop maladaptive conducts like being manipulating, withdrawn, aggressive and controlling (Levy & Orlans 2000:1-26). These maladaptive conducts result to a disordered perspective of others and self. This disorder is evident in an intense disturbance in feelings of security and safety within associations (Chara, K. A., Chara, P. J., & Berns, 2005:7-8). Professional implementation is usually viewed as enacted and developed within particular organisational settings. It is proposed that relational agency results to increased form of a professional agency which benefits the objects of practice (Edwards 2005: 168-182). Research question In regard to this study, the research questions are: Why is this ‘fact’ key? To what exactly is it key? It is a fact key because it reveals the fact that most of the incidents of death or serious injuries that occurred to children 70% were familiar to social care agencies (). It is key because it indicates that there was no distinct comprehension of the cases and the incidents that led to the children being killed and harmed (Brandon 2009:4) Children Needs According to Basarab-Horwath (2010), Lord Laming summarised in his inquiry analysis into the death of the eight year old Victoria Climbié that none of the professionals who interacted with the young girl comprehended what happened in Victoria’s life. Besides comprehending what daily life is like for a young one is important in order to recognize and satisfy her or his needs (Holden & Linnerud 2007: 174-187). She died in 2000 and later the same year the Government printed, in England, its assessment guidance. The guidance is founded on an ecological model, which highlights the essential of comprehending the world of the child (Basarab-Horwath (Ed.). 2001:21). This implies knowing what is going on in the child’s life in regards to the community and family they live in. There is a research, practice and policy that enlighten the development of the assessment structure (Basarab-Horwath 2010:18-19). Conclusion The lessons learnt from serious case reviews can improve early years in practice (Rose & Barnes 2008:88). From the case review studies, it is evident that young children and babies with particular needs and faced with cultural barriers, for example disabled young ones and their families are all subjected to serious injury or death and their situations need careful observation by Local Safeguarding Children Boards (Kennedy, I. 2010: 45). Most of the children who suffered from neglect due to family hardships and children exposed to domestic violence co-existed with other difficulties, for example, mental ill health and substance misuse (Glaser 2002: 697-714). Such situations present challenges to providers of services in particular in terms of timely and appropriate intervention, co-ordination of services and early identification (Percival 2013:95). The professionals from agencies entrusted with the carrying out co-ordinated multi-agency plans carry an important responsibility for facilitating effective information allocation and consideration of the effects on the child in safeguarding and promoting the welfare of the child (Wekerle 2013: 93-101). There was strong evidence from various cases that the voice of the child was not sought, and communication happened between parents and professionals instead with the children (Masson 2005: 231). Results from the cases reflected the analysis of the data got from the reports though the recommendations did not correspond to the findings (Riege, 2003:75-86). There were different perspectives whether the failures or operational hardships that had been recognized were as a result of systematic complications in need of holistic solutions or the result of personal error that is acts of omission or commission (Corby 2003:195-210). These different views were not clear in the recommendations, and some analysis had both elements. What was noticeable was the significance in the recommendations on strengthening or reviewing established procedures or initiate new processed (Brandon, Sidebotham, Bailey & Belderson 2011:12). This was in support of the views by some of the participants that the systems were sufficient but faced with the problem of employee compliance. There was minimal emphasis on issues of supervision, staffing resources, management and staff skills, knowledge and experience as would have been expected (Appleton 2012: 60-71). Some agencies were going through major changes that caused disruption and discontinuity in staffing did not appear in issues to be addressed (Morrison 2000:363-373). A variety of factors were recognized by participants either hindered or promoted implementation. Some respondents gave recommendations which were consistence with local or national developments that the review could act as a force for change especially in securing for more resources (Rose & Barnes 2008:88). Bibliography APPLETON, J. V. (2012). Delivering safeguarding children services in primary care: responding to national child protection policy. Primary health care research & development, 13(01), 60-71. ARTHUR, R. (2005). Punishing Parents for the Crimes of their Children. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(3), 233-253. BRANDON, M. (2008). Analysing child deaths and serious injury through abuse and neglect: what can we learn?: a biennial analysis of serious case reviews 2003-2005. BRANDON, M., & THOBURN, J. (2008). Safeguarding children in the UK: a longitudinal study of services to children suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. Child & Family Social Work, 13(4), 365-377. BALEN, R., HOLROYD, C., MOUNTAIN, G., & WOOD, B. (2000). Giving children a voice: Methodological and practical implications of research involving children: Rachel Balen, Claire Holroyd, Gary Mountain and Barbara Wood review child-centred approaches to research. Paediatric Care, 12(10), 24-29. BASARAB-HORWATH, J. A. (2010). The childs world the comprehensive guide to assessing children in need. London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers. http://www.123library.org/book_details/?id=2033. BRANDON, M. (2009). Understanding serious case reviews and their impact: A biennial analysis of serious case reviews 2005-07. BROWN, R., WESTLAKE, D., & WARD, H. (2012). Safeguarding Babies and Very Young Children from Abuse and Neglect. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. BROWN, H. (2009). The process and function of serious case review. Journal of Adult Protection, The, 11(1), 38-50. BENTOVIM, A., COX, A., MILLER, L. B., & PIZZEY, S. (2009). Safeguarding children living with trauma and family violence: evidence-based assessment, analysis and planning interventions. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. BASARAB-HORWATH, J. A. (Ed.). (2001). The childs world: assessing children in need. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. BRANDON, M., SIDEBOTHAM, P., BAILEY, S., & BELDERSON, P. (2011). A study of recommendations arising from serious case reviews 2009-2010. BRANDON, M., BELDERSON, P., WARREN, C., GARDNER, R., HOWE, D., DODSWORTH, J., & BLACK, J. (2008). The preoccupation with thresholds in cases of child death or serious injury through abuse and neglect. Child Abuse Review, 17(5), 313-330. CHARA, K. A., CHARA, P. J., & BERNS, J. M. (2005). A Safe Place for Caleb – An Interactive Book for Kids, Teens and Adults with Issues of Attachment, Grief, Loss or Early Trauma. London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers. http://www.123library.org/book_details/?id=2162. CLEAVER, H., UNELL, I., & ALDGATE, J. (2011). Children’s Needs – Parenting Capacity. https://www.gov.uk. Retrieved October 25, 2014, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/182095/DFE-00108-2011-Childrens_Needs_Parenting_Capacity.pdf CORBY, B. C. (2003). Supporting Families and Protecting Children Assisting Child Care Professionals in Initial Decision-Making and Review of Cases. Journal of Social Work, 3(2), 195-210. CAIN, K. B. P. (2001). Information, not technology, is essential to accountability: Electronic records and public-sector financial management. The Information Society, 17(4), 247-258. DAVIES, L. (2013). Working together to safeguard children: a guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. HM Government 2013. EDWARDS, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International journal of educational research, 43(3), 168-182. EDWARDS, A., DANIELS, H., GALLAGHER, T., LEADBETTER, J., & WARMINGTON, P. (2009). Improving inter-professional collaborations: Multi-agency working for childrens wellbeing. Routledge. ELROD, L. D. H. (2001). Reforming the system to protect children in high conflict custody cases. William Mitchell Law Review, 28(2), 495-551. FROST, N. (2005). Professionalism, partnership and joined-up thinking: A research review of front-line working with children and families. Research in practice. FITZGERALD, D., & KAY, J. (2007). Working together in childrens services. Routledge. FORCE, S. W. T. (2009). Building a safe, confident future. London: DCSF. FORCE, S. E. T. (2008). Think Family: Improving the life chances of families at risk. London: Cabinet Office. GWINNER, K. (2013). " Listening, hearing and drawing things together to work on solutions": NAPCAN Play a Part, Queensland, 2010-2013, Evaluation-Research Report. GILBERT, R., KEMP, A., THOBURN, J., SIDEBOTHAM, P., RADFORD, L., GLASER, D., & MACMILLAN, H. L. (2009). Recognising and responding to child maltreatment. The Lancet, 373(9658), 167-180. GLASER, D. (2002). Emotional abuse and neglect (psychological maltreatment): A conceptual framework. Child abuse & neglect, 26(6), 697-714. HERBERT BARON LAMING, & GREAT BRITAIN. PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS. (2009). The protection of children in England: a progress report (Vol. 330). The Stationery Office. HILL, M. (2005). Ethical considerations in researching children’s experiences. Researching children’s experiences: Approaches and methods, 61-86. HEPWORTH, D. H. (2010). Direct social work practice: theory and skills. Belmont, Calif, Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning. HOLDEN, E., & LINNERUD, K. (2007). The sustainable development area: satisfying basic needs and safeguarding ecological sustainability. Sustainable Development, 15(3), 174-187. IWANIEC, D. (2006). The emotionally abused and neglected child: identification, assessment and intervention: a practice handbook. John Wiley & Sons. ICICK, R., LAUER, S., ROMO, L., DUPUY, G., LÉPINE, J. P., & VORSPAN, F. (2013). Dysfunctional parental styles perceived during childhood in outpatients with substance use disorders. Psychiatry research, 210(2), 522-528. KENNEDY, I. (2010). Getting it right for children and young people: Overcoming cultural barriers in the NHS so as to meet their needs. KEMSHALL, H. (2010). Risk rationalities in contemporary social work policy and practice. British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), 1247-1262. LEVY, T., & ORLANS, M. (2000). Attachment disorder as an antecedent to violence and antisocial patterns in children. Handbook of attachment interventions, 1-26. LEWIS, A., & PORTER, J. (2004). Interviewing children and young people with learning disabilities*: guidelines for researchers and multi‐professional practice. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(4), 191-197. LITTLECHILD, B. (2005). The stresses arising from violence, threats and aggression against child protection social workers. Journal of Social Work, 5(1), 61-82. REDER, P., & DUNCAN, S. (2004). Making the most of the Victoria Climbié inquiry report. Child Abuse Review, 13(2), 95-114. ROGOWSKI, S. (2008). Social work with children and families: Towards a radical/critical practice. Practice, 20(1), 17-28. SIDEBOTHAM, P., BRANDON, M., POWELL, C., SOLEBO, C., & KOISTENEN, J. (2010). Learning from Serious Case Reviews: Report of a research study on the methods of learning lessons nationally from serious case reviews. London: Department for Education. STEVENS, I., & COX, P. (2008). Complexity theory: Developing new understandings of child protection in field settings and in residential child care. British Journal of Social Work, 38(7), 1320-1336. MUNRO, E. R., & LUSHEY, C. (2013). Undertaking serious case reviews using the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) Learning Together systems model: Lessons from the pilots. Childhood Wellbeing Research Centre (CWRC), available online at www. cwrc. ac. uk/projects/documents/SCR_Report_March_2013_Version_2. pdf. MUNRO, E. (2011). The Munro review of child protection: final report, a child-centred system (Vol. 8062). The Stationery Office. MUNRO, E. (2011). The Munro review of child protection. Pt. 1, A systems analysis. MUNRO, E. (2010). Learning to reduce risk in child protection. British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), 1135-1151. MUNRO, E. (2012). The Munro Review of Child Protection: progress report: moving towards a child centred system. MOYLES, J. R., GEORGESON, J., & PAYLER, J. (2011). Beginning teaching – beginning learning: in early years and primary education. Maidenhead, England, McGraw Hill/Open University Press. MASSON, J. (2005). Researching childrens perspectives. Ethics and Research in Inclusive Education: Values Into Practice, 231. MORRISON, T. (2000). Working together to safeguard children: challenges and changes for inter-agency co-ordination in child protection. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 14(4), 363-373. MANTHORPE, J., STEVENS, M., RAPAPORT, J., HARRIS, J., JACOBS, S., CHALLIS, D., ... & GLENDINNING, C. (2009). Safeguarding and system change: Early perceptions of the implications for adult protection services of the English individual budgets pilots—a qualitative study. British Journal of Social Work, 39(8), 1465-1480. MACDONALD, G., & MACDONALD, K. (2010). Safeguarding: A case for intelligent risk management. British Journal of Social Work, bcq041. OWEN, S. (2006). Training and workforce issues in the early years. Contemporary issues in the early years, 183-194. PUGH, G., & DUFFY, B. (Eds.). (2013). Contemporary issues in the early years. Sage. PARTON, N. (2011). Child protection and safeguarding in England: Changing and competing conceptions of risk and their implications for social work. British Journal of Social Work, 41(5), 854-875. POTTER, C. A. (2007). Developments in UK early years policy and practice: can they improve outcomes for disadvantaged children?. International Journal of Early Years Education, 15(2), 171-180. PENNELL, J., & FRANCIS, S. (2005). Safety Conferencing Toward a Coordinated and Inclusive Response to Safeguard Women and Children. Violence Against Women, 11(5), 666-692. PERCIVAL, J. (2013). Safeguarding within the Early Years Foundation Stage. Safeguarding and Protecting Children in the Early Years, 95. PERRY, B. D. (2001). Bonding and attachment in maltreated children. The Child Trauma Center, 3, 1-17. ROSE, W., & BARNES, J. (2008). Improving safeguarding practice: Study of serious case reviews 2001-2003. REID, J., & BURTON, S. (Eds.). (2013). Safeguarding and Protecting Children in the Early Years. Routledge. RIEGE, A. M. (2003). Validity and reliability tests in case study research: a literature review with “hands-on” applications for each research phase. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(2), 75-86. SIDEBOTHAM, P. (2011). What do serious case reviews achieve?. Archives of disease in childhood, archdischild-2011. STEVENS, I., & COX, P. (2008). Complexity theory: Developing new understandings of child protection in field settings and in residential child care. British Journal of Social Work, 38(7), 1320-1336. TICKELL, C. (2011). The Early Years: Foundations for life, health and learning. An independent report on the early years foundation stage to Her Majestys Governmentmedia. education. gov. uk/assets/files/pdf/F/The% 20Early% 20Years% 20Foundation s% 20for% 20life% 20health% 20and% 20learning. pdf (17.12. 2011). WALL, K. (2010). Special Needs and Early Years: A Practitioner Guide. Sage. WEKERLE, C. (2013). Resilience in the context of child maltreatment: Connections to the practice of mandatory reporting. Child abuse & neglect, 37(2), 93-101. WALKER, S., & BECKETT, C. (2011). Social work assessment and intervention. Russell House Publishing. Read More