The Safe Guarding of the Child - Research Proposal Example

Managing Child Protection: How can Front Line Professionals and Managers best keep Focused on the Safe Guarding of the Child? Abstract Managing child protection is not just a local community concern but also one that presents a National issue. Everyday there is a high percentage of children being faced with opposition that they should not have to deal with at such a young age. The following researched literature discusses the various associated agencies and professionals involved with ensuring the safety and well being of children. It explores the adverse areas that exist and the reforms that should take place. The operational strategies that are in effect now do not seem to be providing an efficient means of safeguarding all children as this literature has found that there are many aspects that are neglected or simply over looked. Domestic violence, bullying, racism, sexual abuse, segregation, and exploitation are some of the concerns of child protective agencies, and these issues are also explored within the pages of this research. In summarization of this literature, it is apparent children are our Nations future and their protection and welfare should prove to be the number one concern of the Government. Introduction: What is the definition of child protection and what are some of the issues needing managed? One program in the UK that provides a very concise and clear perception of what child protection and safety really is and how it works is, ‘The Working Together to Safeguard Children’ campaign that was first orchestrated in 1999 (Smith 2002, p.1). This program depicts protecting children and ensuring their well being as social aspects that go hand and hand, not separated. After all, the concept is to guarantee that children are in a good, well structured, and nurturing environment and this is indicative of a positive, well balanced, and safe lifestyle for the child to grow and learn. Both of these areas make up a good deal of managing child protection. However, there are pitfalls in this realm due to the fact that management of children’s well being is not spread widely enough and only concentrates on certain aspectual points, not nearly quantifiable enough to make certain there are no adverse issues, possibly promoting a danger or threat to the child. (Wilson, 2003) The three main categories that need to be considered for reform to efficiently protect children are as follows: The technique: many areas of risk and mistreatment of children are simply not addressed by the machinery apparently dedicated to their protection The case management framework fails to consider the links between protection of individual children in a limited range of circumstances and the broader systems and influences which impact on their safety and well being Reactive child protection mechanisms do not have the capacity to initiate or promote actions to improve the general levels of protection or safety for children (Smith 2002, p.2) In a way these issues are characteristic of a lack of organization, which leads it to be one of the main causes for the current problem. If the construction of the management system fails to link the telltale signs of a child in trouble then there is no guaranteed way to effectively ensure the well being of the child. Also, there is a clear misperception that simply because children are in a loving home it is indicative that they are free from any adversity. This is a specific point that is over looked as well. For example, society ahs always perceived that children at play in their community, at day care, on the public playground, or even in school are safe and well looked after. This is not necessarily true because there have been more cases of violence and abduction in these public areas than within a family structure where domestic violence or another negative attribute is prevalent. The world is no longer how it uses to be where you could let you child play in the back yard unsupervised while washing the dishes. There has to be strict managing of child safety by National organizations to protect children and it takes the police, school system, parents, social workers, the community, and the policy makers, and legislators themselves to enact policies and laws that will decently manage children’s safety and well being by ensuring their environment and home life is free from violence. Another good example of what it is to manage the protection of children is in the educational arena. Children go to school to learn but are often harassed and bullied by other kids who have emotional issues themselves. This is where it is up to the educator to step in and safe guard the child that is being victimized by the bully and to also report it. It is noted by ‘The Health Education Authority’ (2002), that bullying in school ranks in a percentile of 1 out of every 5 kids being pushed around or beaten up by a juvenile delinquent. The consequences of being bullied damage a child’s self-esteem, promote high anxiety in the child, and leads to depression as well. However, this does not have to occur because if educators take a stand and properly manage the situations like these, then the child can be assured of safe educational conditions free from mistreatment by others (Smith 2002, p.3). One other respective area in the job of managing children’s safety is looking out for the children who have disabilities. Since it is well understood that these children cannot defend themselves it is an obligation of various local social institutions to protect these children from any wilful intent to harm them mentally or physically. Some of the various problems these children face, and of which should be managed to ensure fair treatment and protection from possible abuse are: Domestic violence Poor and inappropriate treatment by professionals Invasive and painful medical treatment Bullying Segregation Racism (Smith 2002, p.4) Child protection agencies are sometimes the main agencies of support these children receive to uphold a decent sense of living standards and to prevent them from suffering from being bullied or facing other adverse conditions in their lives. Because of all the implied negative circumstances facing children today there is an imperative need to review the past strategies and attempt to reform some of them, plus supply local and national agencies with the necessary resources to better assist the children who are found to be at risk of non-favourable living conditions and stressful environments. Therefore, there needs to be a direct assessment in the current operational procedures being utilized to ascertain how beneficial and assertive to the problem areas they really are. It is critically evaluated that child protection systems have been chronically enmeshed with certain kinds of high-risk children and families for as long as there has been a child protection movement. There is a discernable intergenerational transmission of child protection work where generation after generation of the same family (or types of families) and welfare systems are caught up in intense relationships. This is reflected in a core pattern of long-term, multi-problem, multi-referred child protection cases which keep coming (back) to professional attention and which are at the heart of high-risk work. In my study, 33 per cent of all referrals were re-referred at least once within a year. Some 70 per cent of substantiated child protection cases had histories of social work involvement. (Vanhorne, 2005) Professional systems are chronically enmeshed with certain types of cases and families who live in poverty, the parents often have addiction problems; there is an over-representation of lone-parents (overwhelmingly mothers), who, like women with partners, tend to suffer other adversities such as being survivors of childhood abuse and domestic violence from a current or former violent partner who may or may not be the father of the children. Yet, the full implications of this have not been fully recognized or theorized. The 'underclass debate' typifies how at least some strands of welfare research, especially but not exclusively from the political right, have approached this issue in terms of dysfunctional and pathology. Another strand of theorizing welfare, which comes mainly from the political left, tends to focus on what they see as the oppressive 'limited repertoire of services' of child protection now on offer which do not bring satisfaction to consumers who then withdraw goodwill. However, the big difficulty with this significant perspective is that it focuses in a one-dimensional way on the services that are on offer. The State is always in the wrong because involvements are supposedly not what service users want, so it is the services that need to alter to be customized to what is said to be authentically needed. While strong on holding the system to account, this argument completely ignores what the client/ service user, her or him, brings to the equation. Moreover, the traditional construction of the welfare user in the critical theory of child welfare is not merely of a passive 'client', but an idealized one who apparently can do no wrong. As Williamson (2005) critically evaluates that research paradigms need to transcend this unhelpful dualism of 'bad system/ good client' to look at what both the system and welfare clients contribute to the meanings and outcomes of interventions. Legal Context and Framework of Child Protection The legal framework In United Kingdom, the Children Act 1989 sets out the legal requirements for child protection practice. The UK child protection act introduces orders applicable when children are at risk of significant harm in United Kingdom. Public and private laws relating to children are combined under it, in a series of principles governing practice and procedure, both in and out of court. Parental Responsibility Responsibility is the key word here. Though defined as all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority that by law the parent of a child have in relation to that child, the legal stress is on responsibility. Parents are expected to be responsible for looking after their children, and local authorities have a duty to support them in so doing as the need arises. Parental responsibility may be shared by a number of people. The birth mother always has parental responsibility (unless it has been lost through the child being adopted). The birth father has parental responsibility jointly with the mother only if they marry at any time before or after the child's conception. Other adults, such as the unmarried father, grandparents or stepparents, through a Parental Responsibility Order, can acquire parental responsibility. The local authority can also acquire parental responsibility through the making of a Care Order. (Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, 2002) If parental responsibility is acquired through a court order, such as a Residence Order, it will be lost when the order ends. Establish who has parental responsibility when seeking consent for treatment, for example immunisation. Significant Harm And Court Procedures The sole ground for initiating proceedings under UK CHILDREN ACT 1989 is that the child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, and that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to: 1. Care given to the child, or likely to be given to them, if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them, or 2. The child being beyond parental control 3. In reaching a decision about a child the court considers: 4. The comparison of the child's health and development with a similar child 5. Whether the care given by the parents should be what might reasonably be expected 6. Whether minor shortcomings in care or deficits in development may have a cumulative effect and result in significant harm (Heger, 2000) The court's Welfare Checklist therefore includes the following: 1. Wishes of the child 2. Child's physical, emotional and educational needs 3. Likely effect of any change in their circumstances 4. Age, sex, cultural background and any other characteristic the court considers relevant 5. Any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering 6. Capability of the child's parents or any other potential carer to provide reasonable parental care (Reder, 1995) In some applications for court orders, primarily care applications, the court appoints a children's guardian, someone who reports on and makes recommendations about the child to the court. Guardians are independent practitioners, usually social workers, who are responsible for helping the court reach a decision about a child. The guardian is entitled to inspect social services files and to request information or copies of documents relating to the child from any other agency involved. The children's guardian does not have right of access to the child's medical notes. (Jones, 1999) Authority to see these records must be sought from whomever has parental responsibility. Confidentiality All health service workers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of patient/client information and all professional regulatory bodies have their own code of conduct in relation to this. However, the willingness of professionals to share confidential information is crucial where there are concerns about the safety or well being of a child. In child protection practice there are three ways in which the disclosure of confidential information can be justified: 1. With the consent of the parent/carer and/or child 2. Without consent when the disclosure is required by law or by order of the court 3. Without consent when disclosure is considered necessary in the public interest. This includes child abuse (Gopfert, 2003) The issue of consent is one that presents most difficulty for health care workers. There will be occasions where abuse or neglect is suspected and it is either not possible to gain consent for information to be disclosed or consent is actively withheld. The person withholding consent may be the victim, the perpetrator of the abuse or another person. Whatever the circumstances, the primary duty and responsibility of the professional are to act in the child's best interests. Although disclosure without consent should be the exception rather than the rule, it is lawful to disclose confidential information if it appears necessary to do so to safeguard a child in the 'public interest'. (Department of Health, 1999) What this means in practice is that the public interest in protecting children may override the public interest in maintaining confidentiality. Remember to disclose information that is relevant to the concern about the child and to share information on a 'needs to know' basis that is with other professionals who have a duty of care towards the child. Fraser Ruling The Gillick case concerned the right of a young person less than 16 years of age to consent for medical treatment without the parents' knowledge. The subsequent ruling said that a young person could be considered competent to consent to treatment if their age and understanding are sufficient to enable them to understand what is involved. The concept of competence is central to the law's approach to consent. The Fraser ruling defines competence as an ability to understand information about a proposed treatment. However, in practice it may be difficult to define the level of understanding required for a particular treatment or procedure. There is no easy test of competence for young people and the ability to understand may not necessarily be the same as actual understanding. (Parton, 1997) If in doubt about the capacity of a child to consent, consult one of the named or designated professionals or other experienced colleague. On critical evaluation it is found that in many areas these current discussions are the most up-to-date effort to come to terms, in a policy and practice sense, with the concern of child abuse. For there is no hesitation that since its modern emergence as a social problem, child abuse has been subject to considerable media, public and political interest and discussion. It has been constructed as one of the major social problems of present times and perhaps the major priority for managers and practitioners in the child welfare field. Child protection work, by which we mean protection from risk of abuse, has become too centred on the occurrence or not of an abusive event and the likelihood of its recurrence. Here one has to consider two scenarios. First scenario is that in the former, policy and practice would be driven by an emphasis on partnership, participation, prevention, family support and a positive rethink of the purposes and uses of care. The main concern would be on helping parents and children in the community in a supportive way and would keep notions of policing, surveillance and coercive interventions to a minimum. In effect Part III and Section 17 of the Act would drive policy and practice. The other scenario was that it would be priorities about child protection which would control—in effect Part V and Section 47 in particular, and concerns about the threshold for state intervention based on ‘significant harm and the likelihood of significant harm’. In effect the central philosophy and principles of the Children Act have not been fully developed in day-to-day policy and practice. Not only are the family support aspirations and sections of the Act being implemented partially and not prioritised, but also the child protection system is overloaded and not coping with the increased demands made of it. While child protection is the dominating concern and this is framing child welfare more generally, increasingly it is felt that too many cases are being dragged into the child protection net and that as a consequence the few who might require such interventions are in danger of being missed. (Landsberg, 2001) Concerns about child protection have become all pervasive to the point where childcare and child welfare policies and priorities have been fundamentally re-ordered and re-fashioned in its guise. What we are currently witnessing is a major debate about whether and how policy and practice can be reframed so that it is consistent with the original intentions of the Children Act 1989. Working Together To Safeguard Children Working Together to Safeguard Children is the national framework for child protection practice and its guidance applies to everyone working with children and families. It explains how the child protection process works, setting out the responsibilities of professionals and the procedures to follow when there are concerns about a child. One of the principles of Working Together and the accompanying Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families is that child protection practice should operate within a broader framework of children in need. This includes the needs of children who are, for example, looked-after, disabled, abused through prostitution or suffers social exclusion. These two documents set out the national strategy for children in need and children in need of protection; they also stress the particular importance of an integrated multi-professional approach by all agencies to the assessment and planning processes for all vulnerable children. What To Do If You're Worried a Child is Being Abused is a short guide written in response to the issues raised in the Victoria Climbié Inquiry. It provides a condensed version of Working Together in the form of step-by-step action points and flow charts designed to help front line workers respond appropriately when they suspect abuse and neglect. Designated And Named Professionals The responsibility for child protection services across all health service providers lies with the Primary Care Trusts. They appoint a designated nurse and doctor (usually a senior nurse and a consultant paediatrician) to take the strategic lead in all aspects of the health service contribution to safeguarding children. Designated professionals are responsible for ensuring that policies and procedures are in place and that there are adequate arrangements for consultation, supervision and training. They represent the health service on the local Area Child Protection Committees (ACPCs). Further all NHS trusts must appoint a named doctor and a named nurse/midwife to take the professional lead on child protection matters within their respective trusts and service areas. They are the principal points of contact within health for child protection advice and paediatric opinion and can be consulted about the management of individual cases. It is critically evaluated that the official definition of the child abuse has been broadened considerably over the last twenty-five years and public and professional awareness has increased considerably. While we do not have a mandatory reporting system in the UK, health and welfare professionals will almost certainly be found morally and organisationally culpable if they do not report their concerns. As a consequence the number of referrals to social services departments has increased tremendously. While statistics on referrals are not routinely produced, it is suggested that nationally these are currently in excess of 160,000 a year. However, this broadening definition and growth in awareness and referrals has taken place in a context where there is considerable argument about the nature of child abuse and what we know about it. Child abuse is an increasingly contested area. As a result social workers and others have a clear responsibility not only to ensure that children do not suffer significant harm, but also that parental responsibility and family autonomy are not undermined. Various perspectives have a bearing on the way in which child protection legislation is ultimately framed and implemented. What is crucial, however, is the way in which a wide range of influential groups, including politicians, practitioners or academic researchers; espouses these perspectives and which, at any one time, becomes influential. What any of these individuals or groups believe, in respect, for example, of the role of the state, favour as an economic theory, or choose as a theory of social problems, are all of importance to the way in which child protection policy is shaped. Within the space of three decades, three major pieces of child protection legislation have been placed on the statute books in England and Wales. Each enshrined very different models of the requisite relationship between state, family and child, which reflect the broader political and social eras in which they were passed. In the context of policies towards children and their families, the main shifts have been from prevention through family support to children in need. Each of these variations on a theme provides examples of the uneasy relationship between (essentially selective) social work, and the changing social policy context. Section 17 of Part III of the 1989 Children Act (England and Wales) gives local authorities a general duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need by providing a range and level of services appropriate to their needs. (Landsberg, 2001) A child shall be taken to be in need if 1) One is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services 2) One’s health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision for him of such services, or 3) One is disabled. In addition, the Guidance for the Act, while stressing the intention that the definition of need is deliberately wide to reinforce the emphasis on preventative support and services to families, instructs local authorities that they are to ascertain the extent of need, and then make decisions about the priorities for service provision. The task of ascertaining need, which it is tempting to see as a key element of Conservative social policy, given its high profile in both the NHS Community Care Act as well as the Children Act, had by no means proved unproblematic for local authorities, or necessarily been undertaken in the most imaginative or proactive way. The methodological options facing local authorities in a way reflect the two alternative approaches to child protection in the community of working with children on an individual or on a group basis; having defined their situation on the basis respectively of an individualistic or a structural analysis. There are considerable differences between an approach based essentially on the calculation of a sum total of need individually assessed and one based on predetermined groups of children in need, identified through the collection of geographic and demographic data from a variety of agencies. Perhaps predictably, the most popular method of ascertaining need was by a combination of referral and predetermined group membership; only 4 of the 82 local authorities based their calculations exclusively on group membership. The concept of a referral is a reassuringly familiar one, common to earlier legislation, whereas that of group membership is new and potentially more complex, and might be thought to reduce discretion in favour of a more rights-oriented and less stigmatising approach. The legal realm surrounding child protection and safeguarding of the children has changed over time but the three policies that have offered direct support in the area of child safety have been in place since the mid 1950’s. These three legislative policy laws are: ‘The Universal Declaration on Human Rights 1949’, ‘The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Children 1959’ and ‘The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989’ (Anglin 2002, p.2). The legal expectations that are expected by the courts, in regards to the individual rights of children, is to ensure that any agency aware of any form of abuse that a child might be being subjected to should unquestioningly be reported to the proper authorities. This is the only allowable way that the courts can intervene in these types of domestic situations to efficiently provide protection for the child and resolve the controversy associative with the direct problem resulting in emotional or physical abuse for the child. There are a variable amount of assumptions that come into question when assessments are being done to determine whether or not a child is behaving in a rational manner or if there is any signs or suspicions that the child is living or being place din an unsatisfactory environment which is having an adverse effect on his or her emotional or mental state of being. These assumptions, that are as follows, are what directly shape the child protection laws and debates that are of relevance today. Assessment Criteria in Determining Children at Risk Children are considered to be reliant on their primary care providers, be they their parents, relatives, foster family, or perhaps they are in a home where they were adopted. The fact is the child cannot survive on its own. The issue is that safety and protection is not enough, there must also be a nurturing and loving environment present for proper development. One of the signs of abuse can come from lack of physical contact and affection. 1) Children are innocent when they enter into the world and learn their behaviours directly from their carers. Therefore, when a child is perceived to be eliciting unusual behaviour and behaving oddly him or herself, it is a warning for those in charge of the child’s protection that possibly the child is being abused or is forced to watch it occur to other children. In these instances child advocacy agencies are obliged to step in and resolve the problem 2) There is a perception that children are not complete since they have not reached adulthood yet so in this respect it is up to the adults to correctly teach them child, so that they can develop into upstanding human beings. IF there is a lack of authority or supervision here local agencies should supposedly assist to find suitable means to protect the child and supervise him or her 3) Children are not competent enough to be able to fully speak for themselves so therefore child advocacy groups, social workers, lawyers, parents, doctors, and any other adult person aware of certain circumstances should step in and speak on the child’s behalf to ensure the child’s welfare and safety are being taken care of, especially if there are suspicions of abuse 4) Children are weak and vulnerable to many outside influences in their lives, as well as in their home life, therefore they need extra guidance and protection to lead them in the right direction and keep them safe from harm. The child’s welfare should always be considered and assessed for their own protection and well being (Wilson, 2003) These are some of the areas of question that are thoroughly questioned and looked into in a legal sense for the child’s personal protection and the management of it. Sometimes the courts intervene in extreme cases, for the welfare of the child and the need for his or her own protection. There are specific terminologies that are used to describe children at risk or to detail the necessary procedures and steps that are taken into consideration in child welfare cases. The following outline has included all prudent terminology used in the investigations of child abuse. Child welfare- refers to the broad system of social developmental, special educational, alcohol and drug, and correctional services provided for children and youth needed in society. Child in need- refers to a child who has been identified as having a need or needs beyond what the mainstream or generic health, education and recreational systems provide Child in need of protection or at risk- refers to a child whose parents or other current care givers are unable or unwilling to provide the care, support, and protection required for safe and healthy development and thus the child is likely to experience harm without additional intervention Child protection- refers to the functions of investigations, risk assessment, legal processes, and removal that come into play when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a child may be ‘at risk’ or ‘in need of protection’ Family support services- refers to services provided to maintain or enhance family functioning or the needs of family members, especially the parents, when the current family functioning is inadequate to ensure the safety or healthy development of a child or children in the family (Anglin 2002, p.4) These systematic steps, in the process of child management protection are crucial in uncovering any forms of neglect or abnormal behaviour patters of the child. Proper intervention can prevent any type of domestic malfunctions before they have a chance to escalate further that is why supervision of children at risk is so very important in these cases. Also, there are a multitude of signs that can be observed to be indicative of child abuse or neglect and these different observations are generated by the personal views and beliefs of those working in child protection agencies, a family doctor, a teacher, a midwife, or perhaps a school nurse or even a guidance counsellor, it could be any number of professional adults, especially those in law enforcement who might have direct contact with the child in question of abuse. All in all it is the changes in a child’s behaviour and personality that raise a flag of concern and suspicion and warrant an assessment to be sure there is no abuse, adverse behaviours, or unsatisfactory living environment being placed on the child. The main point of fact is that, despite different cultural beliefs and values, recognizing the signs of children at risk are justifiably verified through a sense of knowledge that all professionals have, which is what is within moral reasoning and moral judgments. How Interagency and Inter-Professionals are helping Child Protection Services along with the Court Systems. In current times there are different and varied protocols that professionals observe to care for children who have been subjected to abuse. They have to be fully aware of these guidelines and follow them if they are going to be able to properly assist children’s agencies in undertaking protective measures for the children’s welfare and safety. Doctors, midwives, nurses, counsellors, and many similar professionals in these professions should already have an inept knowledge with regard to confidentiality of the child and the numerous ethical implications associative with the clause of confidentiality. The Ethics Committee’s main purpose is to establish and maintain the limits of confidentiality for children but at the same time, there needs to be an awareness on how the perception of children and parents alike will be affected by the guidelines on what is confidential material and what information is not and can be shared (Williamson & Goodenough 2005, p.1). Confidentiality Clause One very serious issues of concern for children in the UK right now is that individual practitioners do not have a legally binding obligation to report any suspicion of abuse of a child to authorities. Though this is unethical, it is happening but the legislation hopes to get something done about this because medical professionals can provide fundamental assistance to child protective agencies if they would simply report their findings and concerns. Clinicians must be forced to realize that there is an issue of liability and obligation by them to report child abuse but at the same time uphold the legal stipulation of confidentiality. By doing both of these things they will provide tremendous support in helping provide safety and protection for abused or neglected children (Williamson & Goodenough 2005, p.2). However, the concern of keeping the clients’ confidence is the biggest issue for those in the medical field and the following example gives for better insight into the technical problem of this. “Some would argue that there is an obligation to disclose information relating to child protection. The General Medical Council has adopted this position where disclosure is in the child’s interests and they are incapable of giving or withholding consent. However, it is difficult to show that a legal obligation exists” (Williamson & Goodenough 2005, p.2). The Department of Education has a similar thought process on the issue of confidentiality but their main concern lies in the well being of the child and they do not perceive it as logical to go and not report their findings. An example of how the educational system might work in a situation where a suspicion of abuse exists is below. “Staff has a professional responsibility to share relevant information about the protection of children with other professionals, particularly investigative agencies. If a child confides in a member of staff and requests that the information is kept secret, it is important that the member of staff tells the child sensitively that he ors he has a responsibility to refer cases of alleged abuse to the appropriate agencies for the child’s own sake” (Williamson & Goodenough 2005, p.2). Though reporting an acknowledged case of abuse is the right thing to do, for someone in a professional position, it raises the red flag on whether or not confidentiality is even a relevant statute or not since it seems rarely used. (Wilson, 2003) However, professionals sometimes have to negotiate their moral obligation for the sake of the well being of the child. In this instance, confidentiality is not deemed a priority, the child’s safety is. There are thousands of children every year that become victims of domestic violence, within their own homes. Because of this, law enforcement and social workers must be very observant and willing to intervene in these difficult social situations, at a moments notice. It is through the professionals who have direct contact with abused children, which provide the most efficient evidence and support by testifying in the court system, to verify what they have previously reported. This supplies the children with a support network and somewhere safe, free from violence. An excellent example of how the courts protect children in domestic violence situations is found in the following case of a married couple that had two small children together. Without the professionalism to the police, social services, and the courts themselves this case might not have been so easy to reach a resolution and guarantee the safety of the children but due to the swift response of the local children and family’s protective services it turned out well. Mark and Sue are fairly typical of the hundreds of self-represented litigants that appear yearly on the family law domestic violence calendar. A month before the court date, Mark had come home drunk and was enraged because, when he tried to call Sue, the line was busy. He entered their apartment screaming accusations of infidelity. When Sue denied having a boyfriend, Mark slapped her across the face, causing her to trip over a chair and fall to the floor. Sitting motionless and terrified at the kitchen table were their two children, ages 3 and 5. When Mark stormed off to the bedroom, Sue grabbed the crying children and ran to the neighbour’s apartment, where she called the police. The police came, arrested Mark and interviewed Sue and the traumatized children. She was given an emergency protection order and a contact for a local agency that would help her get a restraining order. Also a stay away order had been issued to protect her and the children from further abuse or contact with Mark (Hitchens & Vanhorne 2005, p.1) This case is only one in many that details what children are up against when faced with domestic violence. Also, the impact that this type of abusive situation has on parenting behaviour is extremely adverse and causes confusion in the mind of the victimized parent and creates more of a mixed emotional environment for the already traumatized children. This unintentionally leads to unstable living conditions for the children and puts them at higher risk in some instances. Many professionals have found there to be many complications within a child’s personality and behaviour after being subjected to this form of mental and emotional abuse. Some of the issues that psychologists, counsellors, and parents themselves encounter from this are: Aggressive destructive behaviours like; bullying, destruction of property, assault, abusing animals, hurting of oneself Withdrawn behaviours like; depression, anxiety, low self esteem, isolation, fear, and a more worried behaviour Emotional numbing and avoidance Nightmares Feelings of irritability and confusion (Hitchens, Vanhorne 2005, p.3). Supporting Parents and Parental Responsibility A major debate has recently emerged in the United Kingdom about how policies and practices in relation to child protection integrate with and are supported by policies and practices that are concerned with parental support and child welfare more generally. Increasingly it seems there is a great tension between the two and that this is posing major problems for policy makers, managers and practitioners in child welfare agencies. This debate and how it is responded to will be the key issue for all concerned over the next few years. While the subject of parental support is frequently written about and discussed by politicians, civil servants, various professional groups, researchers and journalists, its nature and breadth are daunting. Parental support can include: Any activity or facility provided either by statutory agencies or by community groups or individuals, aimed at providing advice and support to parents to help them in bringing up their children. (Audit Commission, 1994, 39) And Its challenges are recognised as being considerable; Part III of the UK child protection act…is the most difficult to implement. But if UK Children Act is to be a success, it is the part to which most sustained attention must be given. (Freeman, 1992, 49) Thus both the scope and the complexity of parental support could be to blame for the deficiencies in policy and practice that have fuelled recent debates. A range of definitional, legislative, professional and organisational issues, which have complicated the process of implementation, surrounds the issue. The real problems stem from the difficulty of separating ideological debate from empirical information. The battle for hearts and minds about the role of the parents, and in particular the requisite relationship between state, parents and child, is hardly a new phenomenon. It is discernible in the earliest debates about social policy. For example, in the 1936 Halley Stuart Lecture, Sir Percy Alden argued that There could be no solution to the many problems connected with social and community welfare unless one began with the child: ‘the child is the foundation of the State and the first line of defence. We cannot lay too much stress upon the importance of the child if the State is to endure. ’ Such a view, both familiar and acceptable to Tudor spokesmen, had become discounted by the eighteenth century. Its reacceptance in the twentieth is reflected in legislation and social policy… (Quoted in Pinchbeck and Hewitt, 1973, 347-8) Indeed, in many ways the evolution of childcare policy (and in particular the extent to which it includes or excludes a positive attempt to enable children to remain in their family of origin) can be taken as a reliable indication of the shape of social policy as a whole (MacLeod, 1982; Parker, 1990). By the end of the 1980s a group of key themes had emerged in the social policies of the Conservative government which, while essentially variations on the theme of anti-collectivism, included: a reduced role for the local authority; cutting expenditure; and the introduction of the market principle into public policy. Closely allied to these themes was the rediscovery of the parents as central to New Right ideology. For ‘the ideal society must rest upon the tripod of a strong family, a voluntary church and a liberal minimal state. Of these, the family is the most important’. Such an approach has clear implications for childcare work. While social workers can (in good faith) try and exploit the focus on parents in order to develop robust and resourceful policies for supporting families, it cannot be assumed that the resources available or the overall ideological climate will be advantageous. While some have seen positive opportunities and have perceived the 1989 UK child protection act as issuing in a period of less compulsory intervention, and relatively more informal support for families, other commentators see its potential as far less benign (Jones and Novak, 1993). Packman’s work is of special significance as it has pointed to the tendency of social workers by the 1970s to reduce prevention to a strict gate-keeping role in respect of providing care for children, without offering alternative help. Her study underlined the need for a wider perspective, which avoids an exclusively problem-focused approach, and which, in looking well beyond the nuclear family unit, may produce better assessments and a broader range of solutions (Packman, 1986, 203). The rational view of achieving the expansion of parental support strategies would stress the need for more empirically derived evidence about its outcomes, as a way of ensuring continuing financial support from government (Gibbons, 1990). Certainly, the constraints on public spending underline the necessity of demonstrating not just the potential social benefits of parent education and parental support programmes, but also their cost effectiveness. Clearly, however, empirical evidence alone is not enough, for If social policies and welfare arrangements were conflict-free, it might be relatively easy to develop a continuum of parental support services in line with the enabling philosophy underlying UK Children Act 1989. Unfortunately this is not the case. (Smith, 2002) One should recognise, therefore, that parental support is two-headed. It has ability to point both towards an optimum child care policy, but also towards a limited and conditional version, painted against the backdrop of a minimal state. In many ways it may seem dangerous to criticise the parental support intentions of UK 1989 Children Act, for to do so can be seen to play into the hands of those who would prefer the juggernaut of child protection to continue unimpeded. Certainly the UK child protection act takes a quantum leap from restricted notions of prevention to a more positive outreaching duty of ‘support for children and families’ (Packman and Jordan, 1991, 323). For example Kirkpatrick, (2005) argue that there is no necessary conflict between the principles of parental support and child protection provided that everyone concerned in implementing the UK child protection act keeps in mind the paramount importance of the children’s welfare and safety. Merely to reiterate the pre-1989 doubts that were expressed by a range of groups (Tunstill, 1992) about the wisdom of organising parental support work around an essentially rationing concept such as ‘in need’ in a period of cuts in local and central government spending, runs the risk of alienating and demoralising both social workers and other groups, such as health visitors, teachers, and day care workers, who are in a position to make a contribution to the welfare of children in the families with which they deal. However, conversely, ignoring the political, ideological and organisational impediments is likely to result in the same outcome, with the additional sense of professional and personal failure deriving from the sense that it is the fault of the individual professional. It is helpful to look at the data on implementation and to explore their implications for future policy and practice. Section 17—The Picture So Far The parental support clauses of the 1989 UK child protection act have attracted widespread attention including the Audit Commission (1994), and different responses are evident. A variety of research projects were commissioned by the Department of Health, in part to lay the foundations for the design of the revised statistical returns from local authority social service departments. Aldgate and Tunstill were commissioned to provide a national overview of implementation of Section 17 in local authorities in United Kingdom. Their study had two stages: a postal questionnaire sent to all 108 local authorities in United Kingdom of whom 82 replied, and a set of semi-structured interviews, which explored some issues in greater depth with a sample of senior managers in 10 of the local authorities, selected because they reflected the main sets of characteristics of the sample as a whole. (Department of Health, 1999) Kirkpatrick (2005) investigated four main areas: 1. The steps taken by local authorities to ascertain the extent of need in their area, including the use of predetermined categories of need (children for whom local authorities already had responsibility, and children in the community), as well as other data; 2. Decisions about priorities for service delivery, and local authority perceptions of their responsibilities for parental support; 3. The experience of working with other organisations, whether inside or outside the local authority, including the extent to which local authorities had been able to develop relationships with other agencies; 4. The emerging patterns of service delivery for parental support, and progress towards the development of a mixed economy. (Kirkpatrick, et. al, 2005) The task of ascertaining need, which it is tempting to see as a key element of Conservative social policy, given its high profile in both the NHS Community Care Act as well as UK Children Act, had by no means proved unproblematic for local authorities, or necessarily been undertaken in the most imaginative or proactive way. The methodological options facing local authorities in a way reflect the two alternative approaches to child care in the community of working with children on an individual or on a group basis; having defined their situation on the basis respectively of an individualistic or a structural analysis. There are considerable differences between an approach based essentially on the calculation of a sum total of need individually assessed (through individual referrals) and one based on New Technology in Safeguarding Children When the issue of child well being and safety moves outside of just neglect and abuse, into the area of child protection from abduction and murder, the concern of the parents to keep their children safe is jointly assisted by the agencies supporting child protection and the government itself. There have been many strategies thought up to try and provide a guaranteed safe environment for children but unfortunately nothing is ever perfect and bad things do happen. One of the ways that the government has now developed to try and provide more of a safety net for children is a new device that is a high tech microchip that parents can have fitted for their child and which would go in their forearm (Crofts 2002). The reason this device came about is because of the kidnappings of children every year and the killing of young innocent lives by these kidnappers. Another reason is the fact that British citizens have not forgotten the horrific slaying of Holly Wells and Kelly Chapman, especially not those with children who are in similar ages of what these two girls were. Though this device is not 100% fool proof it puts many parents minds at ease because it works in a way to where parents have a good idea, at all times, on the location of their child or children. There is some controversy being raised by a number of professionals who work with children on a daily basis though. They claim that the use of this item is actually robbing a child of being able to enjoy their childhood freedom, free from fear of being harmed. Also a concern exists in the idea that, because children will become totally reliable on the device for their immediate safety they may in turn become more risky in their actions and place themselves in harmful situations unknowingly. One agency disagreeing with the distribution of this gadget is Kidscape. Their following view on the tracking chip is in the below paragraph. As a child protection agency, Kidscape is concerned that the use of this microchip might be sending out the wrong message about child safety and could potentially do more harm than good. It’s important to remember that the device itself will not prevent a child from being abducted or harmed. It merely tells location but not activity. It might be hours before a parent realises that a child is missing and then it could unfortunately be too late (Crofts, 2002). Rather than place a device such as this in a child’s arm, Kidscape feels it would be best to teach children and parents the correct means to stay safe and always be alert for peculiar behaviour by strangers or even people that they might be familiar with. This seems to be the best way to guarantee the children’s’ safety in this particular type of situation, rather than rely on something that does not guarantee safety and only tracks them. Conclusion In conclusion, this research has detailed the various professionals that are obligated to safeguard children as well as the agencies that step in to support families at times and at others have to intervene and remove the children from the home. It has shown how the court system works and how various laws have been instated to safeguard children. It has also provided the assessment procedures on how social workers and other child protective service agents determine if a child is at risk or not. Some would say that the job of these professionals who do the assessments on alleged reports of child abuse, endangerment, or neglect have the dirtiest job there is (Morris 2005). The reason this is stated is because no parents is very welcoming of a social worker questioning their abilities or accusing them of inappropriate behaviour towards the care of their child or children. However, there is satisfaction for those who work in this area, no matter how hard the job is, because when they come to know that they have done everything they can to protect the well being of that child and save him or her from any further abuse there is nothing more inspiring than that. Though it is not the most favourable of things to take children away from their families, sometimes it must be done for the sake of the child’s own protection and welfare. Presently the motivation for change is coming from a number of directions in Britain. In the Britain the call for change has come most publicly from politicians, researchers and economists. The Audit Commission report (1994) promoted the notion that more family support activities and facilities should be developed and offered to families who are presently being put in the child protection system but who might better be defined as families in need. (Gornick, 2003) They placed the value of the change within an economic context relating it to the costs of services. References Amiel S, Heath I (eds) (2003), Family Violence in Primary Care, Oxford University Press. Anglin, James (2002). Risk, Well-Being, and Paramountcy in Child Protection: The Need for Transformation. Child and Youth Care Forum, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp.233-255 Audit Commission (1994) Seen But Not Heard: Coordinating Community Child Health and Social Services for Children in Need, London: HMSO. Browne K, Davies C, Stratton P M (eds), (2002), Early Prediction and Prevention of Child Abuse, Wiley. Cawson P, Wattam C, Brooker S, Kelly G (2000) Child Maltreatment in the United Kingdom: A Study of the Prevalence of Child Abuse and Neglect, NSPCC. Crofts, Rachael, (2002). Family Life: Would You Chip Your Child? The Birmingham Post Department of Health (1995) Child Protection: Messages from Research, HMSO. Department of Health (1999) working together to safeguard children. A guide to intergency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. London stationary Office. Department of Health (2003) What to Do If You're Worried a Child is Being Abused: Children's Services Guidance, The Stationery Office. Freeman, M. D. A. (1992) Children, Their Families and the Law, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Gopfert M, Webster J and Seeman M V (eds) (2003) Parental Psychiatric Disorder: Distressed Parents and their Families, Cambridge University Press. Gornick C. Janet, Meyers K. Marcia; (2003). Public or Private Responsibility? Early Childhood Education and Care, Inequality and the Welfare State, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, Vol. 34. Heger A H, Emans S J, Muram M D (2000) Evaluation of Sexually Abused Child, Oxford University Press. Hitchens, Donna & Vanhorne, Patricia (2005). The Courts Role in Supporting and Protecting Children Exposed to Domestic Violence. Journal of the Centre for Families, Children, The Courts Hobbs C J, Hanks H, Wynne J M (1999) Child Abuse and Neglect: A Clinician's Handbook, Churchill Livingstone. Hobbs C J, Wynne J M (2001) Physical Signs of Child Abuse: A Colour Atlas, W B Saunders. Iwaniec D (1995) The Emotionally Abused and Neglected Child, Wiley. Jones D P H, Ramchandanl P (1999) Child Sexual Abuse: Informing Practice from Research, Radcliffe Medical Press. Jones, C. and Novak, T. (1993) ‘Social Work Today’, British Journal of Social Work, 23(3), 195-212. Kirkpatrick, I. Ackroy, S. Walker, R. (2005). The new managerialism and public service profession. Palgrave Macmillian. Landsberg Gerald, Wattam Corrine; (2001), Differing Approaches to Combating Child Abuse: United States vs. United Kingdom, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 55. Lord Laming The Victoria Climbié Inquiry (2003) The Stationery Office. MacLeod, V. (1982) Whose Child? The Family in Child Care Legislation and Social Work Practice, London: Study Commission on the Family. May-Chahal C, Coleman S (2003) Safeguarding Children and Young People, Routledge. Meadow R (ed.) (1997) ABC of Child Abuse, 3rd edn, BMJ Books. Mullender A, Morley R (eds) (1994) Children Living with Domestic Violence, Whiting & Birch. Packman, J. (1975) The Child’s Generation, Oxford: Blackwell. Packman, J. and Jordan, B. (1991) ‘The Children Act: Looking Forward, Looking Back’, British Journal of Social Work, 21(2), 315-327. Packman, J. with Randel, J. and Jacques, N. (1986) Who Needs Care? Social Work Decisions about Children, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Parker, R. (1990) Away From Home, Barkingside: Barnardos. Parton N (ed.) (1997) Child Protection and Family Support Tensions, Contradictions and Possibilities, Routledge. Pinchbeck, I. and Hewitt, M. (1973) Children in English Society, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Reder P, Duncan S (1999) Lost Innocents: A Follow-up Study of Fatal Child Abuse, Routledge. Reder P, Lucey C (1995) Assessment of Parenting: Psychiatric and Psychological Perspectives, Routledge. Rogers S, Hevey D, Ash E (1989) Child Abuse and Neglect: An Introduction, Open University. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (2002) Fabricated or Induced Illness by Carers, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the Association of Police Surgeons (2002) Guidance on Paediatric Forensic Examinations in Relation to Possible Child Sexual Abuse. Royal College of Physicians of London (1997) Physical Signs of Sexual Abuse in Children, RCP Publications. Ryan M (2000) Working with Fathers, Radcliffe Medical Press. Smith, Roger (2002). The Wrong End of the Telescope: Child Protection or Child Safety? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law pp.247-261 Stevenson O, Thompson P (1998) Neglected Children: Issues and Dilemmas, Blackwell. The Bridge Child Care Consultancy Service (1995) Paul, Death through Neglect, Islington Area Child Protection Committee. Tunstill, J. (1996) ‘Children in Need: The Answer or the Problem for Family Support’, Children and Youth Services Review, 17(5/6), 651-664. Tunstill, J. and Ozolins, R. (1994) Voluntary Child Care Organisations after the 1989 Children Act, Norwich, University of East Anglia. Tunstill, J., Aldgate, J., Wilson, M. and Sutton, P. (1996) ‘Crossing the Organisational Divide’, Health and Social Care in the Community, 4(1), 41-49. Williamson, Emma & Goodenough, Trudy (2005). Conducting Research with Children: The limits of Confidentiality and Child Protection Protocols. Children and Society, Volume 19, pp.397-409 Wilson, K. James, A. (2003) The Child Protection Handbook. Elsevier Science Ltd. Read More