Article Text
PDF
Statistics from Altmetric.com
This is a response to an article by Nigel Speight and Jane Wynne, ‘Is the Children Act failing severely abused and neglected children?’, published in this journal in March 2000.1 Overall, we consider the article to be polemical and inadequately argued. Many of the points made are unsubstantiated and there are errors of fact. Where does evidence based practice go if senior practitioners prefer anecdotes and personal belief to research findings?
Restrictions on space preclude an exhaustive reply to all the points Speight and Wynne raise, so we have confined ourselves to addressing those considered most significant.
Methodology
A primary weakness in the article is its anecdotal basis and reliance on comments from colleagues. No attempt is made to address the extensive research literature which relates to the periods before and after the implementation of the Children Act. This high calibre, well corroborated literature has been subjected to stringent peer review.2 Speight and Wynne are dismissive of this research, as their comments about “Messages from research” indicate. They assert that child protection has worsened without clearly defining their terms of reference or the ways in which they are measuring outcomes. Instead, they base their opinions about what happens now on comparisons with an idealised view of previous practice. This leads to serious misconceptions and spurious conclusions that may have damaging consequences.
Before the Children Act
The authors simultaneously sanitise and simplify the situation before the Children Act and underestimate the range of concerns that existed. The use of compulsory intervention, for example, was found to be less effective than working with parents of children who needed to be separated from families for their protection.3 Far from producing quick decisions based on professional assessment, wardship proceedings were frequently long and drawn out, leaving the courts no alternative but to accept de facto severance …