Born into care: Evidence of a failed state

Recognition and Justice? Conceptualizing Support for Women Whose Children Are in Care or Adopted

“…'Census day' care population data (recording the number of children in care on 31 March in a given year) show that numbers grew from 43 to 64 per 10,000 children in the period 1994-2017. Patterns of change are complex, and whilst the biggest increase has been in the proportion of young people entering care aged 16 years or older, there has also been a marked increase in the number of children who are 'born into care', removed from their mothers very soon after birth [2,3]. Government data on placements through care orders and voluntary accommodation show that the rate of children entering care at birth has almost doubled over ten years, 'from one baby in every 386 live births in 2007-8 to one in 210 in 2017-8 [3] (p. 3).…”

“…Patterns of change are complex, and whilst the biggest increase has been in the proportion of young people entering care aged 16 years or older, there has also been a marked increase in the number of children who are 'born into care', removed from their mothers very soon after birth [2,3]. Government data on placements through care orders and voluntary accommodation show that the rate of children entering care at birth has almost doubled over ten years, 'from one baby in every 386 live births in 2007-8 to one in 210 in 2017-8 [3] (p. 3). The emphasis in English legislation (notably, the Children Act 1989) is on supporting children's upbringing within their birth families wherever possible, with high thresholds for intervention, and child removal mandated only when there is significant risk of harm to a child.…”

Baby brain: Neuroscience, policy-making and child protection

“…The authors argue that rather than meeting the social and material needs of children and their families, the state during austerity has retreated to a moralistic position whereby individuals are held responsible for their own troubles. Recent research by Bilson and Bywaters (2020) provides further evidence for this analysis. As the authors state, whereas the highly influential Allen report (2011) called for investment in community resources to support the care of infants in their families, the reverse of this was enacted by U.K. government policy, 'crystallised by the decimation of funding for Sure Start children's centres' (Bilson and Bywaters 2020: 4).…”

“…The work of Broadhurst, Mason and colleagues in England and Wales has further demonstrated the lasting difficulties that this causes for birth mothers, and the risk of 'recurrent' care proceedings (Broadhurst et al 2017;Broadhurst and Mason, 2020;Griffiths et al, 2020). Inequalities in rates of removal from different geographical areas of England have been noted (Bilson and Bywaters, 2020;Broadhurst et al 2018). Furthermore, there is evidence that babies from Indigenous Aboriginal communities are more likely to be removed from their families and kin than non-Aboriginal families in both Australia (O'Donnell et al 2019) and New Zealand (Office of the Children's Commissioner, 2020).…”

“…Trends in early separation of infants from their birth families are a current concern for child protection. Increases in infant removals have been noted in countries with risk-focused child protection systems (Alrouh et al 2019;Bilson and Bywaters, 2020;Broadhurst et al 2018;Marsh et al 2017;O'Donnell et al 2016). The work of Broadhurst, Mason and colleagues in England and Wales has further demonstrated the lasting difficulties that this causes for birth mothers, and the risk of 'recurrent' care proceedings (Broadhurst et al 2017;Broadhurst and Mason, 2020;Griffiths et al, 2020).…”