Parental beliefs and child protection

In 2012 a young infant was admitted to a London hospital, having been found unresponsive in his cot by his parents. A post-mortem examination showed that the child had died of florid rickets caused by severe vitamin D deficiency (Windibank, 2014).  The parents, strict vegans with strong religious beliefs had refused any medical intervention for their child, including routine immunisations and health surveillance.  They also refused vitamin D supplements, recommended by doctors when it was identified that both he and his mother were deficient.  When the child became unwell with an infection, the parents did not seek any health care, stating that they were awaiting a ‘sign from God’.

In June 2015, 3 Muslim women from Bradford, UK, disappeared along with their 9 children, aged between 3 and 15 years. It is believed that they travelled to Syria via Saudi Arabia and Turkey, that their motivation was that they didn’t want their children growing up in England, and that they had a brother who was understood to be fighting with extremists in Syria (BBC, 2015).

In both these situations we could assume that the parents loved their children and would not have wished any harm to come to them. The parents were apparently motivated by their beliefs; we presume that none perceived their actions as abusive.  And yet, all these children were either seriously harmed or at least potentially put at risk of harm.

Parental beliefs have the potential to be a great force for good in a child’s life and development; they also have the potential to cause great harm. Deciding when the state has a duty to intervene and act in contravention of a parent’s beliefs is fraught with legal and ethical dilemmas.  However, it is not an issue we can ignore, particularly given all we know of abuses suffered in religious institutions, and a growing awareness of the risks posed by strongly-held fundamentalist beliefs (Gilligan, 2009; Sidebotham & Appleton, 2012).

 

The latest issue of Child Abuse Review, published just before Christmas, explores these issues.  The issue includes papers on the complexities of exploring child protection within Islamic contexts and attitudes towards corporal punishment, both of which I discuss in the accompanying editorial.  In addition, there are papers on child protection in sport; sex offenders’ awareness of online security; young people’s understanding of parental substance misuse and domestic violence; and the needs of child protection workers.

 

Click Here to see the Editorial and full list of contents

 

 

BBC (Producer). (2015, 9.9.15). Missing Bradford sisters: Mother ‘didn’t want children to grow up in UK’. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33201176

Gilligan, P. (2009). Considering religion and beliefs in child protection and safeguarding work: is any consensus emerging? Child Abuse Review, 18(2), 94-110. doi: 10.1002/car.1059

Sidebotham, P., & Appleton, J. V. (2012). Understanding Complex Systems of Abuse: Institutional and Ritual Abuse. Child Abuse Review, 21(6), 389-393. doi: 10.1002/car.2253

Windibank, O. (2014). Serious case review: Baby F: D.O.B. 01/01/2012: D.O.D. 14/06/2012: independent overview report. Bexley: Bexley Safeguarding Children Board.

 

Child Abuse Review Impact Factor

cover 24_1 I am delighted to report that we have just received news of the 2014 Thomson Reuters journal citation report, and the Impact Factor for Child Abuse Review has risen from 0.787 to 0.841. This represents the fourth successive rise and an increase of 51% from our 2011 Impact Factor. We are ranked 18 out of 40 journals in both the social work and family studies fields.

While the Impact Factor has its limitations, it does affirm that Child Abuse Review is increasingly being recognised as a high quality scientific journal publishing good papers which are being cited elsewhere.

Perhaps of more importance, though not reflected in the Impact Factor, the feedback we get from both researchers and practitioners is that Child Abuse Review is perceived as an accessible journal which is of relevance to front-line workers as well as academics, and the material we publish does impact on evidence-informed practice to protect children.

New Directions in Child Protection and Wellbeing

BASPCAN logoToday is the last day of the BASPCAN Congress.  Over the past three days I have had the privilege of meeting some awesome people from around the world – friends and colleagues old and new, united in one purpose: to make this world a better place for children.  We have heard some inspiring talks, considered new research, and discussed novel ideas.  It has been a really great congress.

 

While we may discuss and debate important policies and procedures, reflect on groundbreaking research, or consider different approaches to teaching or practice, what stands out to me is that what really makes a difference to children is individuals being themselves and doing what they care about: being passionate and compassionate; being present to children and families, empathetic, caring.  And it is that care that I’ve seen in peoples faces as I have wandered around the congress.  These 800 people, like me, want to make a difference.

Publishing with Impact: A presentation at the BASPCAN Congress, Edinburgh, 2015

cover 24_1Getting published can be a bit of a challenge.  For academics there can be incredible pressures to get published in good journals, and to get your work noticed.  But how do you do so, particularly in an increasingly digital world.  In this presentation, we outline some of the principles for getting published in Child Abuse Review, we consider what makes a good publication and what we as Editors are looking for in a submission, and provide some tips for increasing the visibility of your publication in today’s world.

Click on the link below to see the presentation from the BASPCAN Congress.

Publishing with Impact

 

 

The challenge and complexities of physical abuse

cover 24_1The latest issue of Child Abuse Review has just been published, with a special focus on child physical abuse. On the background of high media interest in child abuse, there is some research evidence that rates of more severe physical abuse may actually have decreased. This suggests that, perhaps, our societies are becoming less tolerant of physical violence towards children.

While we should celebrate this, there is certainly no cause for complacency. Marije Stoltenborgh and colleagues from the Centre for Child and Family Studies in Leiden have collated data from across the globe on all forms of maltreatment. They report that one in every five children globally report that they have experienced physical abuse during their childhood. While rates do vary between countries, these figures show that we still have a long way to go in protecting children from violence. One important finding from Stoltenborgh’s work, as with many other studies, is that the majority of physical abuse suffered by children never comes to the notice of professionals. Their data suggest that child protection services are only picking up one in every 75 cases of physical abuse. The implications are clear: we need to do better at recognising and responding to abuse, in providing children and young people with opportunities to tell someone about their experiences, and in supporting parents in bringing up their children without resorting to violence.

Professionals working in the child protection field do not have an easy job, and it is far too easy, when things go wrong, to blame the professionals for either not acting quickly enough, or for over-reacting and intervening inappropriately in families’ lives. In a previous paper, I have spoken of an evidence-informed approach to child protection: ‘the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence, integrated with clinical expertise and an understanding of the context of the case, to guide decision making about the care of individual children.’ In order to do this, we need high-quality evidence from research and practice, combined with a good deal of common sense.

 

Other papers in this issue of Child Abuse Review provide some of that evidence: a case series of young children presenting with unexplained rib fractures (in which notably, all children diagnosed as having been abused had other features supporting that diagnosis, and all infants whose fractures were due to bone disease had other risk factors for that); and another case review of histories given by parents of children with abusive fractures (in all cases in their series, the accounts were often vague or uncertain, and frequently multiple accounts were given as the injuries came to light).

 

But that is where common sense and clinical skill need to come in. Child protection work is not straight forward: ‘While it may be possible to draw similarities between cases, and to highlight typical findings, the very nature of child maltreatment is such that complexity exists. While many cases may fit a classic presentation, others will not, and there can be multiple reasons for the manner in which cases present.’ I have previously argued that ‘Finding our way through this complexity requires an authoritative approach, combining a thorough understanding of the circumstances and context of the case, with an appraisal of the evidence base, the practitioner’s own expertise and experience, and the humility to work in partnership with children, their parents or carers, and other professionals.’

 

To see the contents and abstracts of this issue of Child Abuse Review, click here.