Protecting children from harm is one of the most important responsibilities of a civilised society. News that there has been a 50% rise in the number of children taken into care over the past 10 years could be interpreted in a number of ways.
It could suggest there has been a disturbing increase in child abuse, it could suggest there has been a commendable improvement in the detection of such abuse, or it could represent a lower threshold for putting children into care.
Of course, the ideal place for children is with their parents, but there are many cases where the happy family paradigm is not reflected in the actual situation. It is the function of social workers specialising in child protection to decide when a child’s interests might be better served away from his or her family. Clearly, there will be cases where the right decision is fairly obvious. But there will be many borderline cases, where efforts will have been made to create conditions where the child can stay at home.
Social workers are in a difficult position. They get the flak when a child ends up dead as a result of brutal assault within the family unit or severe neglect. But they are also often criticised for being over-zealous in breaking up families. The right balance is difficult to achieve, and the reality is that whatever decisions are taken will cause upset.
Sir Ronald Waterhouse is right to express his concern about the 50% increase publicly. As someone who conducted one of the most in-depth investigations ever held into child abuse, he is well qualified to contribute to the debate. His point about the increasing level of fostering is well made. It is certainly easier to inspect a children’s home than it is to keep tabs on a large number of foster parents, although Sir Ronald more than most will know that bitter past experience shows how the worst abuses can remain undiscovered.
The problem is that with child protection, it is very difficult to be prescriptive or to generalise. Every case has to be considered on its merits by a judge who will inevitably give due weight to the recommendations of the social workers involved. Where social workers recommend that a child should be taken into care, it is unlikely that a judge will say no.
There is, however, perhaps scope to revisit
the question of where children should live when they are in care. In
recent years the trend has been for them to be fostered, but that is not
always successful.
Perhaps there should be more children’s homes, not on the scale of those
investigated by Sir Ronald, but small units where teams of carers could
provide a safe haven for children at risk.
Martin Shipton
30 September 2008
