Child Protection and Child Welfare
 By Charles Pragnell 22 July 2009. |
||
| Fundamental Principles The following Principles of Child Welfare and Child Protection are usually embodied in State or National laws regarding child protection and in the guidance issued to child protective workers by State Authorities with a duty and responsibility for providing those services. The law therefore reflects research findings and professional opinions developed over the last half century regarding child care and welfare. Preventing Family breakdown and separation of a child from the family It is fundamental principle of Child Welfare and Child Protection social work and has been for the last 50 years that the first step in engaging with a family is to seek to maintain family unity and cohesion. The reason for this is that children suffer immense emotional harm by being separated from the primary caregiver (usually the mother). Preventive work is usually done by providing assistance, and support to the family and particularly the primary caregiver by way of counselling, assistance with the care of children, domestic help, respite care for the care giver or the child, or a range of other services. This support can be given even in circumstances where there may be a low or even a medium level of child maltreatment occurring - it is only where there is firm and clear factual evidence that a child is suffering significant and severe abuse, should intervention by removal of the child occur. But still conscious of the high probability that the child will be harmed by removal from the family. Emotional Harm Emotional harm of a child occurs where a child experiences emotional deprivation or separation from the primary caregiver during critical periods of bonding and attachment with the primary caregiver, and can be caused by over-emotional involvement of the carer with the child (sometimes referred to as spoiling) or a dislike of the child by the primary caregiver, or worst of all, complete indifference of the primary caregiver to the child’s emotional needs. The child will usually exhibit extreme distress followed by withdrawal, and then a complete lack of trust in all adults. This is very often seen in children removed into State Care who are distrustful of adults and withhold from any emotional engagement with such adults and refuse to bond with them, even in foster care and adoption, but particularly in residential institutions. So a careful assessment of the bonding and attachment between the child and the caregiver is the singular most important consideration in risk assessment of a child that significant harm may occur to the child. Children who are repeatedly moved between foster carers whilst in State care suffer immense emotional harm and attachment disorders as they struggle to form temporary attachments with their temporary carers. Foster care is only of value to a child if there is some degree of attachment but the child must be allowed to retain their primary attachments to their primary caregiver and natural family and not to be presented with conflicts by adults in order to meet the adults own needs. Even parents who may have been formally diagnosed as mentally ill, which should advisedly only be carried out in a long period of assessment and be done with great care and thoroughness by a trained psychiatrist, can provide and reasonably adequate standard of emotional and physical care of a child and the vast majority of parents with diagnosed mental illness are able to do so. There are many parents with undiagnosed mental illnesses who are providing adequate care of their children. Mental illness per se’. does not therefore prevent a parent giving appropriate care to their child and for there to be little or no risk of harm to a child. Drug and alcohol addiction, financial misuse on gambling, criminal conduct that does not include violence should be considered also in the context of the emotional bonds and attachment which exists between the primary caregiver and the child. It is only where a parent has a history of causing harm to themselves or others, that concern should be held for the parent’s capacity to provide appropriate care for a child and the risk of harm to the child. Rehabilitation The next important principle of child welfare and child protection work is therefore to maintain contact between the child and the primary caregiver and with other family members such as siblings and another parent. Grandparents should also be included and important for the child to maintain contact with, where they have previously taken an active part in the child’s life and have developed a bond with the child. This is vitally important in preserving the bonding and attachment between the child and the primary caregiver and also with other family members, if there is to be any possibility of a successful reintegration and rehabilitation of the child back into the family. It is usual that the child welfare and protective worker has a duty and responsibility therefore to encourage and facilitate regular and continuing contact between the child and the primary caregiver and other family members to enable this process and to re-assure the child that they may return to the family. This is usually done by frequent visitation, letters, cards, and by telephone. Only in circumstances where there is a seriously high risk to the child of further maltreatment would such contact be curtailed and even then, such contact can be monitored and supervised by the appropriate workers. Complete separation of the child from the primary caregiver and the family should therefore never be contemplated or condoned. At times of contact of the child with the primary caregiver, the child may be distressed and anxious during the contact or especially when the contact ends. This is perfectly normal behaviour of a child who has had a close bonding and attachment with the primary caregiver and only if the child shows indifference or protests that they do not wish to continue the contact, should concerns be held as this indicates that the child has suffered emotional harm from the separation and has emotionally withdrawn in order to protect him/herself from further emotional harm caused by separation. It may then be necessary to work with the child to restore the bonding and attachment and in extreme cases the child may need psychiatric intervention to assist with this process. Permanent Placement Re-unifying and rehabilitating a child with their natural family should only be abandoned if it no longer becomes a realistic objective – that is that it can be adjudged that the emotional attachment of the child to the primary caregiver has severed or has become extremely weakened and after considerable attempts to re-unify the attachment, therefore there continues to be a threat of serious and significant harm to the child, and the child is ready to form new attachments with other caring adults and expresses a preference to do so. It is essential that these three criteria are fulfilled that a child can form new attachments with any degree of possibility of success. At all stages in this process the wishes and feelings of the child must be obtained and given considerable weighting in decisions made by responsible adults concerning the child and affecting the child’s life and future wellbeing. State Care Children in State Care, even for relatively short periods of time, have a poor record of attainment in many aspects of their lives. A great deal of research in the last 50 years has shown that they frequently experience disadvantage and poor performance in education and in gaining access to employment opportunities, and figure disproportionately in statistics on crime and imprisonment, drug and alcohol addiction and abuse, prostitution, and homelessness. It is for these reasons that removal of a child from their primary caregiver and family should always be an absolutely last resort and should only occur when all other forms of support and assistance have failed. It also presents a considerable dilemma for child protective workers in that the child may suffer more abusive harm of all forms, physical, emotional, and sexual from removal from the primary caregiver and family into State Care, than to remain with the family and continue to suffer some degree of abuse. Charles Pragnell 22 July 2009. Expert Witness – Child Welfare and Child Protection. Back |
||