The Act of Parliament, Children Act 2004 - Essay Example

The Act of Parliament, Children Act 2004 This essay will discuss The Children Act 2004 and the Every Child Matters (ECM) policy to see what improvements, if any have been made since the last Act, and whether the Act is working or not. This act was formulated to appoint a regular commissioner for children and establish more efficient regulations for the protection of children and young people. The reason for writing this essay is to provide an analysis for the performance of the Children Act 2004 and ECM. I am affiliated with the prestigious Social Services Department and I feel obligated to write an essay, critically analysing the performance and achievement of this Act and suggest some useful and practical recommendations. It would be convenient to talk about the background of Children Act 2004 before moving forward towards its analysis. The primary aim of this Act was to make provisions for instituting a Children’s Commissioner. The main idea behind this move was to appoint person with appropriate authority who could efficiently handle matters related to children’s social protection. After that the Act concentrated on making more efficient procedures for the protection that local authorities provide ‘to’ and ‘for’ children. It was also aimed at family proceedings, child minding, private fostering, adoption of review panels, day care, child safety order, reasonable punishment, publication of material containing inappropriate child content and disclosure by the Inland Review of Information to provide better care for children of Wales. In September 2003, the nation witnessed the tragic news of the death of Victoria Climbié. As this heart-breaking news got national attention, the government put out the Every Child Matters green paper besides a formal reply to Lord Laming, who was investigating the matter of the poor child’s tragic death. Lord Laming’s report was an eye opener for many authorities. The report pointed out so many gaps in child protection system that shouldn’t have been there. The more significant aspect of the report was the lack of ‘joined-up reporting’, which was the reason that even the professionals were unable to get an insight to the child’s life. The green paper recommended some crucial reformations that enjoyed full support of the legislation. Lord Laming’s report highlighted crucial failures in the health, social services and the police departments that on12 occasions, Victoria had a chance to live but that chance couldn’t be avail because there was privation of information sharing. That is why the act proposed by Lord Laming empowers the government to create an electronic profile of every child in England. This profile, other than the usual name and address, includes information about the child’s school, GP practice and the person taking care of the child. All of this data is shared by the relevant authorities for better care of children. The reason why the Victoria Climbié case is so important in the development of Children Act 2004 is because it redefines child protection as it had previously been perceived. The original Green Paper that was filed before the Act, talks about various policies and initiatives that change and modify the then existing children services. The aims of such proposals go beyond common child protection and touch the limits where potential dangers for children are also considered; for instance, it discusses the prevention of various factors that can contribute adversely for children that are considered ‘socially excluded’. These factors can be listed under several categories such as ill health, truancy, poor health and living conditions, and anti-social behaviour. All of the above measures could only be fulfilled only if active arrangements were made. And such measures focus on the ‘potential’ of a child. If children are not living up to their true potential then there is something wrong and something needs to be done to correct it. On the other hand, the word potential is a very subjective term. The question that needs to be answered is who will be the judge to decide a child’s true potential? The initiatives such as intervention and prevention to control factors that are considered detrimental to child’s development mostly involve child’s family and carers. Such measures can only be effective when a proper information sharing system is in place that goes deep inside a child’s social life. Information about a child’s record needs to be shared among various agencies and this system demands proper maintenance of records. There are certain aspects of Children Act 2004 that did not sit well with the parents and other people involved. The electronic infrastructure for maintaining and keeping children records demands too much surveillance and monitoring of children. This is an opinion that has been voiced by many that their privacy is being breached by this act. Section 12 of the Act permits government and authorities to maintain electronic records of over 11 million children. Information Referral and Tracking (IRT) is the mechanism by which this system runs and allows for information sharing between various agencies. The word ‘Tracking’ in IRT refers to the contact of a child with any of the following departments; health, welfare, education or law-enforcement. Margaret Hodge, Minister of State at the time of passing the Children Act proposed that local information sharing system could work in such a way as to share ‘early’ information about children and young people whenever appropriate. The electronic information sharing system would make it possible to allocate a specific identification number to every child and that number would represent a specific area that the child belongs to. Even if the child moves to another area, that same number would still be operational and useful (Penna, 2005). Information Referral &Tracking (IRT) was already under consideration even before the Children Act 2004. For instance, mentioning of IRT could be seen on the Home Office White Paper (2003, Para. 2.5). When this universal IRT system was proposed, it was seriously criticized for its application to every child in the UK. Despite of this criticism, the universality of this act was maintained even when considerable surveillance was already in place for children and their parents. When the Children Act 2004 was not in effect, children that needed special attention (also referred to as ‘vulnerable’ by social authorities) were already on the special-care list of many authorities. Despite the fact that The Children Act 2004, on the whole, brought many great things for the protection and safeguard of children, however there have been many criticisms on the Act too. For instance, the Commissioner appointed as a direct consequence of this act is not ‘all powerful’. The rights and authorities provided to the commissioner are not exercisable in all of their respective limits which considerably undermine the authorities of the post. The act ensures that the commissioner can only carry out the formal investigations into the matter upon approval from the relevant secretary of state. And that same secretary also possesses powers to withhold any report which it finds appropriate or inappropriate (liberty-central, 2009). Peter Clark, the Welsh commissioner and next president of the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children, considered it a ‘very weak model’ as the role of the commissioner did not have autonomy. On a similar note, Carolyne Willow, coordinator of the Children’s Rights Alliance gave remarks that clearly point out the weaknesses in the authority provided by the act to the role of a commissioner. She said, "Without powers to access information, to enter establishments, to subpoena witnesses and to meet children in private, the commissioner will be indistinguishable from childrens charities" (liberty-central, 2009). Other than the issue of the powers of the child commissioner, the government had been questioned on; the establishment of such a wide electronic database of children and young people, and sharing of this database among various departments. Most serious concern of these is the security and confidentiality of the database itself. ‘ContactPoint’ is the government’s ‘information sharing index’, and is now not as secretive and unknown as it should’ve been. And teachers and various societies are already voicing their concerns for the protection of the children’s database. Every Child Matters policy was introduced in 2003 followed by The Children Act 2004, but a considerable amount of time has lapsed since then. The year 2004 now seems like a part of ancient history. In December 2007, the government dispensed the ‘Children Plan’, which was a review of key aspects of ‘Every Child Matters’. Much amendments and improvements were expected of this review but it only seems to be ‘steady as she goes’. The question is; what does it promise for the future? Despite of all the criticism, both the Children Act 2004 and Every Child Matter Policy have made considerable progress. The fact is, both of these proposals seeded a sense of optimism among people. John Coughlan, the director of childrens services for Hampshire commented on these acts by saying that they were going really well. When it was made official about the disestablishment of social services and education departments, people were very content. Many credible analysts warned of several setbacks due to immense restructuring of departments but stumbling blocks are yet to be seen and local authorities are the ones who have made such great and safe progress possible (Winchester, 2008). Director of the Centre for Excellence and Outcomes, Christine Davies stated that she was one of the architects of Every Child Matters Policy and the progress that this policy has shown is considerable. But it would be fair to say that the policy also exhibited variations as each area is at a different point of the journey. Moreover she absolutely agrees with the main theme of Every Child Matters Policy that schools are the hearts of interdisciplinary system. Initially, this was an issue with Children’s services but not anymore (Winchester, 2008). Perception and direction of focus for the act and especially the ECM has changed a lot. Now the health issue gets more attention over other matters. Davies adds to this subject; "The child health strategy [delayed from the spring but expected shortly] will hopefully bring some momentum to that. Theres a lot of evidence that childrens mental health is really one of our challenges as a nation" (Winchester, 2008). There is a lot of positive energy about the reforms and progress so far been exhibited but there are some preordained problems too. Orthodox child protection systems which social authorities were used to, has been abandoned and new format of child protection and safeguarding has been introduced. Under Every Child Matters Policy, child protection did not remain only the business of social works; instead the people involved belonged to a very wide group. This diversification has also welcomed some unanticipated and not completely comfy messages. Local authorities have been involved in the safeguarding system proposed by ECM which was not anticipated (Winchester, 2008). This is due to the inspection regime known as new Joint area review (Jar), which has concentrated on safeguarding alone. This regime inspects infrastructure and processes as well as files, and reviews whether police checks are working or not. It also examines its impact on children. The primary function of Jar is children’s social care but it also investigates with the services that contact children. Andrew Cozens, a strategic adviser at the local government Improvement and Development Agency says that before introducing Jar, there were some services didn’t support it and now after the introduction of Jar and current analysis shows that there are many types of council still showing some concerns. Cozens further added that the worst concern is that there still are many services, even whole departments who haven’t yet fully grasped the idea of what comprehensive safeguarding is all about. And it can be a cliché when opinions are not backed by strong evidences. Integrity is upheld when a department knows where it is at on the vision-line that and most probably the Improvement and Development Agency isn’t completely sure of where it stands (Winchester, 2008). Other than the Joint area review (Jar), Universality has been one of the few things that have escalated problems. There has been some deviation observed in various strategies of local authorities. For instance, ECM’s focus on universality has in fact diverted the attention from the most vulnerable children. There is definitely some evidence that ministers are ready for major refocusing to make the system more effective and get things back on track. Loosing focus from the core objectives has created some glitches but a few nip and tuck got things back on track. Chief executive at the charity Action for Children, Clare Tickell agrees with the opinions and statements by Cozens. She added to the same line of ideas that the problem with programs like ECM is that people involved with running this sector is that they need to frequently ask themselves the question that ‘are we doing it?’, because constantly asking this question is the only way that can make sure that the most vulnerable are heard to and their needs are taken care of. If this is not the case then the whole program of Children Act and ECM can be rendered ineffective (Winchester, 2008). The progress made by; first the ECM and then the Children Act 2004 is tremendous, however the most scrutinized and probably the most talked about aspect (that has also faced criticism for its probable ineffectiveness) is the section 58 of Children Act 2004. This section talks about the ‘reasonable punishment’ for children (Children Act, 2004). Children, families and the people who work with the children have least likeness for this section as it has added the least amount of positivity. It is widely considered that the section 58 of the Act doesn’t provide reasonable protection to children in case of an assault by their parents. Many people believe that physical punishment should be absolutely banned for children’s protection (Consultation, 2007). The above opinions were reported after conducting a consultation involving 1405 responses to the review of the Children Act 2004 and its practical consequences. Respondents strongly felt that the section 58 provides no protection to children in case they are physically beaten by their parents. It is also written in the report that the respondents feel that judgement on physical punishment of a child is dubious and confuses both parents and professionals. And this confusion also hampers sound judgment in cases pertaining to child abuse as the offender can find some leniency in the definition of physical punishment. People also hold the opinion that despite the changes made in the law, it doesn’t prevent parents from using unacceptable level of physical punishment to ‘correct’ their children. Some people are also of the opinion that there isn’t any ‘acceptable’ level of physical punishment for children, meaning there shouldn’t be any physical punishment for children at all. Majority of people were of the opinion that local authorities struggle to establish effective measures to keep parents from physically punishing their children, while many also think that agencies’ anti-smacking program is in direct conflict with several policies of Government. It is for this reason that agencies are unable to move forward with this program with a clear message explicitly saying that there shouldn’t be any physical punishment for children. People (mostly parents and people looking after children on daily basis) also think that the level of punishment is widely misunderstood by parents and children’s families. And that the professionals struggle on the term ‘reasonable punishment’ as it is almost absurd to judge the severity of punishment by the mark left on a child’s skin. This process of judging the severity of physical punishment to a child can have seriously misleading consequences as some skin tones don’t show marks as vividly as others. For instances, black children can get the worst treatment of physical punishment if judged by the marks on the skin as only extremely severe smacking marks would appear on the skin of a black child. According to a careful survey a considerable number of people (mostly parents) are of the view that children should enjoy the same rights as adults, meaning it is illegal to physically punish an adult (or even hit), same should be the case for children. And the fact that children are more sensitive to harsh treatments and punishments, it only makes their case stronger. Also, many people from the same survey suggested that section 58 of Children Act 2004 should be amended and must be replaced by UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. All of the above mentioned concerns and opinions have their place and are respected but it is an unquestionable fact that both ECM and the Children Act 2004 have been developed after rigorous hard work. Probably there are some loopholes but both of these reforms have definitely added to the children’s protection. The relation between Children Act 2004 and the green paper Every Child Matters policy is that the act implements most of the proposals laid out in the policy of ECM from Sep 2003. It would be safe to say that ECM is in fact the background that made Children Act 2004 possible. The act further introduced more elaborative reforms and initiatives to make child protection stronger so that all young people of England would get the most out of what life has to offer. Original plan of Children Act 2004 suggested that 150 local authorities would make an information hub providing services to the children of their respective areas. The most crucial activity that these information hubs would delve into would be to prevent vulnerable children and families from possible risks and dangers before disaster strikes; an active arrangement as a result of the Children Act 2004. A commissioner that represents opinions and wellbeing of children and the younger population of England has already been appointed as a rule of legislation. The first appointed commissioner is Professor Al Aynsley Green who was a former child health tsar for the government. Today there are several child commissioners all over UK, though those appointed in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have a greater autonomy to provide for children’s rights. Many of the Government’s reforms regarding Children Act 2004 have been welcomed by parents and the authorities (social services, police, etc.) involved. However childcare academics, policy experts and practitioners have also thrown substantial criticism towards it. A few experts are also concerned that if children and adult services are separated then it would be very difficult for the service providers to cater the needs of parents and children that belong to vulnerable families, whereas some experts are also warning about ‘children’s files’ that can considerably dent the family privacy. These matters aside, a lot of experts are also concerned about the limited authority of the children’s commissioner. But the biggest concern is that government’s plans to provide better protection to children are not funded properly. A lot more financial resources are required to fully implement various plans and polices effectively. According to several councils, due to financial problems, cost of children’s services is increasing in leaps and bounds, specially the cost of residential accommodation. One review by the government showed a staggering 71% councils complaining about difficulties in recruiting people for social work pertaining to children protection along with a vacancy rate of 11.8% (Batty, 2005). Association of Directors of Social Services and the British Association of Social Workers and other professional organisations have welcomed government’s initiatives in developing childcare workforce strategy that is targeted to inspire and buoy up more people to chase a career in children’s services. It is evident that regardless of how much improvement government makes in improving legislations and improving the original Children Act of 2004, if government fails to recruit more people in children’s services, much less good will come out of the ECM and the Children Act 2004 (Batty, 2005). Works Cited BATTY, David. 2005. Childrens services: the issue explained. [online]. [Accessed 13 January 2012]. Available from World Wide Web: CAROL TULLO, CONTROLLER OF HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE AND QUEEN’S PRINTER OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT. 2004. Children Act. [online]. [Accessed 11 January 2012]. Available from World Wide Web: CENTRAL, liberty. 2009. Children Act 2004. [online]. [Accessed 13 January 2012]. Available from World Wide Web: OFFICIAL-DOCUMENTS.GOV.UK. 2007. Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 Review (Consultation). [online]. PENNA, Sue. 2005. The Children Act 2004: Child Protection and Social Surveillance. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. 27(2), p.143 — 157. WINCHESTER, Ruth. 2008. Changes for the better? [online]. [Accessed 13 January 2012]. Available from World Wide Web: Read More