Send letter to journal:
Re: Is the Children Act failing severely abused and neglected children

I recognise that Drs. Speight and Wynne, wrote an unbalanced article (Is the Children Act failing severely abused and neglected children) to encourage discussion but I expect more respect for evidence in Archives of Disease in Childhood.

I could trade insults based on factual inaccuracies (the Children Act was enacted in 1989 not 1990 and implemented in 1991), selective and inaccurate references and many unsupported statements that largely ignore counter-indicators. But insults would obscure the important point.

The Children Act is framework legislation. It does not dictate practice but sets a framework sufficiently flexible to adapt to new ideas. If evidence shows that removing more children from their relatives will result in greater child protection, the Act will permit such a change in emphasis.

The child protection field lacks reliable evidence about what works, for whom, when and why. Into this vacuum floods completely inconsistent ideology and rhetoric. Practitioners are criticised one week for doing too little, the next for being over reactive.

Would a greater willingness to prosecute parents, intervene in family life and remove children lead to better outcomes for victims of maltreatment? I do not know. I could produce a learned, properly referenced article giving the pros and cons. Can the state parent better than an errant parent? The answer is sometimes 'yes', sometimes 'no'. Evidence from the United States, probably the most interventionist of western developed countries and almost certainly the least effective in protecting children urges caution.

We need less rhetoric and more evidence. The struggle is to find out what works in the protection of children and to encourage the consistent application and re-evaluation of that technology. Arguing whether to remove more or fewer children is pointless. Thinking about what we do when we are responsible for supporting these children is the key. The Children Act encourages reflection and will allow implementation of results, whether they be for or against the views of Drs Speight and Wynne.

Send letter to journal:
Re: While having some sympathy with Drs Wynne and Speight...

While having some sympathy with Drs Wynne and Speight over the despair that they feel about the containment of child neglect and abuse, the answer surely cannot be the wholesale transfer of children from the frying pan of their own homes (one notes that the West children remained in a way fond of their father despite truly appalling treatment at his hands) to the fire of local authority institutions staffed by paedophiles or unsuitable and stop-gap fostering. The problem is perhaps essentially insoluble, given its nature and the way in which our resources are made available and deployed -as in the case of imprisonment for offenders; and occasional exceptions merely prove statistical rules. But to reduce the numbers of children in such straits may require changes in our whole culture; which may not only be impossible to achieve but might do more harm than good by rescuing the unlucky 10% at the cost of no longer taking the well being of the 90% for granted, as one should be able to do. Nor does the insinuation of best practice necessarily work since it so much depends on the enthusiasm, dedication and idealism of those who have developed it which is usually the kernel of their achievement while what can be described and specified is only the husk.

It is surely unacceptable that in a grossly overpopulated world with over exploited resources and with the availability of effective birth control children are still being born whose parents don't want them, can't provide for them or, instead of rearing them properly, abuse and exploit them - while at the same time we spend a lot of public money on the treatment of infertility. A pseudo Darwinian free for all mitigated by charity is not the answer in that in a struggle for survival the survivors are often damaged without necessarily any culling of the unfit in terms of the qualities that are needed to promote the kind of world we want and strive for; yet we rightly cannot bring ourselves to manage society like an ant heap. It could be that make do and mend is the best way forward; relying on those in the front line - like Drs Wynne and Speight - for guidance on how best to use limited resources.

Yours faithfully

Send letter to journal:
Re: The Children Act - why does everyone assume..?

Dear Editor,

I found this to be a deeply challenging and compelling piece. Whilst it may have been written some time ago, its sentiments are just as relevant today. What intrigued me about this was the simplicity with which it was written. This is essentially a good thing and it may lead to discussion. However, my response to the original question as to whether the Children Act is failing abused children is the complete opposite to that which the authors, Speight and Wynne suggest. It is because of the 180 degree viewpoint that I felt compelled to write.

As one who has been on the receiving end of child abuse - many years ago, I often wonder if m/any working in the field of child protection genuinely have any clear understanding of human nature. This is not intended to sound inflammatory ~ but it astonishes me that so many believe they have moral justification to intervene in children's and often, adult's lives where abuse is suspected or known.

Who gives them this right and what is hoped can be achieved? By continually focussing on the child and its perceived needs, this spotlight simply renders most children ever more dependent on those who express interest in them. This is rarely, if ever, recognised by those working with children as to do so would render those same professionals in effect, redundant.

When this happens, the child enters a cycle of dependency that often results in a downward spiral and the very same people whose policies of care initiated the process are the ones left scratching their heads twenty years later when the child has taken its own life.

Empowerment is a word that is never used with regard to children and their needs. Children are far more robust that most experts understand. I speak not from the perspective that says "let child abuse abound..." but as one who has been on the receiving end. I do not understand the constant need by so many to identify and prevent child abuse occurring when the simple, cold, hard truth is that child abuse cannot be stopped, any more than prostitution can. It can be understood to a degree, and people can be on hand to respond to those who may require support - but there is much within the industry that is worshipping an image it has created for itself, rather than serving the needs of the child.

What is abuse? Is there a clear definition of abuse that is recognised by health professionals and the general public alike? What the professionals may view and understand as abuse means little if the general public are not engaged, or worse, if the general public feels threatened by any perceived intrusion.

And what of the child? How can anyone determine what is best for a child in a harsh environment? Removal of a child may be a quick fix solution and may salve the conscience of those witnessing any abuse but it is not a long-term solution and certainly does not enhance the child's future development.