This essay will discuss the current inter-agency
arrangements in the UK with regards to the child protection system and review
how they evolved to get to this stage. It will then go on to analyse the aims
of relevant legislation and statutory guidance, such as the Children Act 1989,
the Children Act 2004, and finally Working Together to Safeguard Children (2010).
Possible reforms will then be discussed and conclusions drawn upon.
Since 1948 there have been over 70 public inquiries into major cases of
child abuse.[1]The
names of many of the children who have died have become well known, because of
the horrific and publically detailed nature of their deaths. Maria Colwell[2]
, Jasmine Beckford[3],
Kimberley Carlile[4],
Leanne White[5],
Chelsea Brown[6],
and of course Victoria Climbie[7]
and more recently Baby Peter[8]
are all well known cases in this country. The particular circumstances of each
case may be different but there are also areas of considerable similarity. The
inexperience and lack of skill of individual social workers and an inadequate
amount of resources to meet demands can be seen as unfortunate features in
these cases and of the child protection system in this country. Most
importantly the lack of inter-agency co-operation has been highlighted in many
debates over the years resulting in several public inquiries and then
eventually new legislation.
Initiatives to encourage greater co-ordination between
education, health and social services for children in England and
internationally are, of course, not new[9]. The Report of the Inquiry
into the death of Maria Colwell in 1974 emphasised just how much a problem the
communication between agencies in this country had become, ‘what has clearly
emerged is a failure of systems compounded by several factors of which the
greatest and most obvious must be that of the lack of effectiveness of
communication and liaison.’[10] Cases usually involve two
or more agencies, but effective work is often hindered by misunderstanding of
respective functions. All workers needed
to have agreed arrangements for exchanging information and they needed a clear
understanding of each individual’s involvement in the case in order to run a
smooth investigation.[11]
There is no single piece of legislation that covers child
protection in the UK, but rather a myriad of laws and guidance that are
continually being amended, updated and revoked.[12] The Children Act 1989 was
described as 'consensus legislation' and followed a series of influential
reports regarding social services intervention to protect children through the 1980s.
Three important public inquiries followed the deaths of Jasmine Beckford, Kimberley Carlile and Tyra Henry[13] and these highlighted the failure of agencies
to work together successfully to protect children, and the failure of Social
Services to intervene. These were paralleled by the Cleveland report[14], where Social Services
and medical professionals were criticised for over-zealous diagnosis of sexual
abuse, and too hasty intervention, which overrode the rights of parents.[15] In 1988 the Cleveland
Report was published which highlighted inter-agency breakdowns and
inter-disciplinary co-operations as a major flaw in the child abuse crisis.
Following on from this report Working Together guidelines were issued as a
response to the lack of communication. However it still seemed hard for many
people in the child protection areas to correctly use the legislation before
the Children Act 1989.
The current child protection system is based on the
Children Act 1989 which was introduced in response to the array of laws
affecting children at the time. There was not one clear structure for anyone to
follow which made implementation difficult. The Children Act 1989 was described, by the
then Lord Chancellor, as " the most comprehensive and far-reaching reform
of child law which has come before Parliament in living memory". It integrated
almost all the law relating to children. The Act brought together the public
and private law provisions for the first time.
Under the Children Act 1989 four types of partnerships
were created and formalised. Those included partnerships between parents who
live apart, between families and social workers, multi-disciplinary
partnerships and the partnership of an agency with the children themselves. The
Act detailed what local authorities and the courts should do to protect the
welfare of children.
The Children Act 1989 charged local authorities with the
“duty to investigate … if they have
reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives, or is found, in their area
is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm” . Under these circumstances the local authority must
make such enquiries as ‘they consider necessary to enable them to decide
whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s
welfare’[16]. A court can direct a local authority to
investigate a child’s circumstances, where ‘it may be appropriate for a care or
supervision order to be made with respect to him’[17].
However a court cannot require a local authority to apply for a care order, nor
can it force a care order upon a local authority which does not apply for one[18].
Since the Children Act 1989 there have been many new laws passed which
have strengthened the process under which children are protected. In
response to the Act which came into force in 1991 another version of Working
Together was produced and then in 1999 a third version of Working Together was
published on the deficiencies of the guidance document. The Human Rights
Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.
Whilst it does not specifically mention children’s rights, children are covered
by this legislation as they are persons in the eyes of the law, just as adults
are[19].
The Act makes it unlawful for public authorities to act in a manner which is
incompatible with the rights and freedoms contained in the Act. It also
requires the Government and the courts to ensure that court rulings and new bills
are compatible with the Act wherever possible.[20]
Article 8[21]
guarantees a right to respect for family life. The essential aim of article 8
is to protect individuals against arbitrary action by public authorities. In
order to comply with article 8, social services who work in the area of child
protection must ensure that any interference into family life is lawful,
proportionate and necessary[22].
The presumption in favour of keeping children in their families, unless
contrary to their best interests, as seen in Hasse v Germany[23],
is recognised by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) under the right to
family life in article 8.[24]
Following on from the Human Rights Acts was the Children
Act 2004 which was formed as a result of the Climbie inquiry. In April 2001,
the government announced a public inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie.
Climbie was starved, beaten with
bicycle chains, bound naked and kept prisoner in a freezing bathroom in an
inner city flat in London. When she died, just aged eight in February 2000, she
weighed just 3st 10lb and 128 separate injuries were found on her body. A
public inquiry into Victoria’s death conducted by Lord Laming highlighted a
series of missed chances for the authorities to save her life. The inquiry was
the first in Britain to use special wide-ranging powers to look at everything
from the role of social services to police child protection arrangements[25].
A disgraceful lack of communication was emphasised as being a main issue within
her case. According to the official inquiry a large part of the blame fell on
the ‘blinding incompetence’ of Haringey social workers who missed twelve
chances to save her.[26]
However it was not just social workers; nurses, doctors and police officers allowed
her great-aunt, Marie-Therese Kouao, and Kouao’s lover Carl Manning to torture
the little girl to death due to the lack of communication.
In June 1999, Ester Ackah, a distant relative anonymously
telephoned social workers in Brent and warned them that Victoria was in danger[27].
Social workers say what happened to this information is unclear again
highlighting an incredible lack of communication which often occurred. Victoria
Climbie was seen by doctors on several occasions. She was seen in 1999 for
scratches and suffered scalding to her head and face on a separate occasion
later that same year. Social services failed to ask Victoria what had happened
and made no arrangements for her to be monitored. What worsened the situation
was that there was little exchange of information between the hospital and the
social workers. Council to the inquiry Neil Garnham QC said that this led to a,
‘battle of conflicting assumptions’[28]
where each body believed that the other was fully aware of the suspicions when
in fact the lack of communication meant that nobody knew just how serious the
situation was. Doctors suspected abuse but did not realise that neither social
services nor the police were aware of the evidence. One police officer assigned
to the case[29]
even refused to visit Victoria Climbie because she feared she may catch scabies[30].
If doctors had communicated the suspected abuse and the evidence behind it,
then occurrences such as that would not have happened.
Inter-agency arrangements and communication failed to
help Victoria Climbie. One of the most contested points in the inquiry was in
relation to the health visitor follow-up. Rachel Crowe of North Middlesex
Hospital said that she referred the Climbie case and case notes to a community
health visitor, Luana Brown. Brown stated that this did not happen and she did
not receive any instructions or papers to follow-up the case. These two
completely conflicting versions of events show the lack of consistency in the
ability to communicate between the different agencies involved in keeping
children safe. This is the sort of communication breakdown which was
highlighted by Lord Laming in his inquiry. The Laming report led to the ‘Keeping
children safe’ report[31] as well as the creation
of the Every Child Matters programme, which consists of
three green papers ‘Every Child Matters’[32], ‘Every Child Matters: The Next
Steps’[33], and ‘Every Child Matters: Change for
Children’[34] . All of this in turn led
to the Children Act 2004.
Lord Laming found the Children Act 1989 to be
fundamentally sound but there had been gaps in its implementation[35]. There were concerns of
poor co-ordination and failure to share information and nobody seemed to have a
sense of accountability along with organisational and management problems. The
Children Act 2004 does not replace or even amend much of the 1989 Act instead
it sets out the process for integrating services relating to children[36]. As well as creating a
Children’s Commissioner for England it also places a duty on local authorities
to appoint a director of children’s services and an elected lead member for
children’s services, who is accountable for the delivery of services.
Other key developments under the Children Act 2004 were
the creation of Children’s Trusts and Local Safeguarding Children’s Boards
(LSCB). The LSCB is the key statutory mechanism for agreeing how the relevant
organisations in each local area will co-operate to safeguard and promote the
welfare of children, and for ensuring the effectiveness of what they do.[37]
It encourages, if not demands, agencies to work together and co-operate as they
all have to come together to agree on what is best for the child. Children’s
Trusts were intended to create and provide a better integrated and responsive
service for children and young people and many feel that this has been a
success.[38]
LSCBs were established to replace non-statutory area child protection
committees. These boards have a duty to co-ordinate local arrangements and
services to safeguard children and to ensure their effectiveness. The Children
Act 2004 prescribes which parties are to be co-ordinated.[39]
The Act also requires local authorities to promote inter-agency co-operation[40]
which instantly should have helped
dispose of communication breakdowns. However there have still been some
breakdowns since this Act.
The UK Government has defined ‘safeguarding children’ as,
“The process of protecting children from abuse or neglect, preventing
impairment of their health and development, and ensuring they are growing up in
circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care that
enables children to have optimum life chances and enter adulthood successfully”[41]. In 2006 the government
released the statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard
Children[42].
This set out ways in which organisations and individuals should work together
to defend and promote the wellbeing of children. There are two parts to the
Working Together guidance. Part one gives all the rules that must be followed
by social workers and others, and part two summarises research about children's
and young people's lives and what helps and harms them.
The Working Together guidance covers agencies with
statutory responsibilities for child protection and services contracted by them
which include chief officers, managers and practitioners.[43] The guidance also covers
other agencies with no statutory responsibilities under the Children Act 2004,
but who may have a key role to play in child protection. This includes
education services, early years and childcare services, housing services, youth
services, cultural and leisure services, alcohol and drug services, the armed
services, faith communities and more.
The Baby Peter case was a publically recognised case in
which a 17-month old baby died in August 2007 after enduring months of abuse.
Every single agency failed Baby Peter both singly and collectively[44].
Twenty-eight different social workers, doctors and police officers had seen the
child but failed to save him from the torture. When he died he was covered in
over 50 injuries and was described as being a ‘human punchbag’. Agencies acted
in isolation from one another and there was a tremendously unsuccessful sharing
of information[45].
The Inquiry into Baby Peter was headed by Lord Laming who put forward
fifty-eight recommendations of changes following that investigation into the
failings of the case. Twenty-three of Laming’s recommendations from the second
Laming Report[46]
were incorporated into further changes of the Working Together guidance which
was expanded from 256 pages to 391 pages. This new version took effect from the
1st October 2010. The amended Working Together 2010 expanded the
focus on inter-agency working.
It is said by some that the Working Together 2010 document
has helped the system since its implementation as this way all the relevant
agencies now have specific guidelines to adhere to. “Everybody who works or
has contact with children, parents and other adults in contact with children
should be able to recognise, and know how to act upon, evidence that a child’s
health or development is or may be being impaired – especially when they are
suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm.”[47] There also
once were many disagreements between agencies in relation to the appropriate
course of action to provide once a case is referred. The aims and duties of all
the different agencies have always lead to massive barriers in the
communication between them. A police officers job, for example, is to solve
crimes by protecting victims and bringing the offender to justice where as a
social workers job is to try and repair a family unit to see if they can stick
everything back together[48]. Therefore upon
approaching a case these two different professions would have entirely
different opinions on how to deal with it. At times even experts examining the
same injuries can differ widely in their interpretation of them. [49].
However the Working Together guidance now addresses this issue with the use of
easy to understand flow charts. This makes the system clearer and much easier
to comprehend for all involved. Working
Together promotes checks and balances within the child protection systems.
Working
Together to Safeguard Children 2010 continues to promote the sharing of data
between those working in child protection. It addresses many issues which, in
the past, have been confusing for people involved. It states
that if a concern may constitute an offence, police should be informed as soon
as possible. This gives clear direction to those involved that information
needs to be shared effectively. The guidance encourages inter-agency
arrangements during emergency procedures as well because these are taken
following legal advice and a strategy discussion between the police, social
services and other agencies which may be related to the case[50].
Confidentiality is seen as an issue with regards to child
abuse and child protection cases. Confidentiality should be preserved and
people have a right for it to be preserved both legally and ethically. Article
8 of the ECHR provides a right to a private life. However Working Together 2010
gives a clear statement that the child’s best interests must be the overriding
consideration in making every decision.[51] Therefore if there is
justified reason to share information then social workers or other agencies
have the ability to do so. They should not feel trapped by privacy laws.
The current laws and legislation with regards to child
protection have taken a long time to evolve. Mistakes have been made and
inquiries have been a process to highlight these mistakes. Many feel that the
country has a stable and well-rounded system in place which promotes the
welfare and safeguarding of children via inter-agency co-operation and
arrangements. The implementation of the Working Together to Safeguard Children
2010 guidance has been a huge influence on the inter-agency communication
holding many accountable if they fail to deliver what is required of them. However
some children are still not protected enough.
Many feel that it is due to lack of funding that the
system is still flawed. Detective Sergeant Harry Keeble, who had twenty years’ experience in
police and spent time in Hackney’s Child Protection Team argued that, ‘It’s a
question of money and resources failing to match the demands’.[52]
He went on to state that a basic flaw in inter-departmental communication where
he worked was that of an ‘antiquated fax machine.’ All the referrals to the
Child Protective Service, in Hackney and many other places in the country,
arrived via fax up until February 2009 because the budget did not allow for a
decent IT system with email. This instantly hindered communication because if
the system that agencies share information via is unsatisfactory then instantly
it obstructs inter-agency arrangements. Thankfully this has now been corrected
but email has been available for a long time so why did it take the UK Government
so long to implement it? Sir William Utting agreed with this stating that ‘it
is unacceptable that the disagreements and failure of communication of adults
should be allowed to obscure the needs of children.’[53] The Government should be
constantly looking at ways to improve the speed and accuracy of the Child
Protection system regardless of cost.
A positive from the Victoria Climbie Inquiry was that
suddenly ‘money was no object and child protective services were expected to
pursue the accused whatever the cost’[54].
However the negative press and media attention towards the services has
resulted in it remaining extremely short-staffed and underqualifed. People did
not want to join a system which was perceived as flawed. Plus social workers
seem to operate in a world without recognition. There are no statistics to show
just how many lives social services have saved, it is merely the failures which
are focused on in the media and across the country as a whole. The promotion of
inter-agency help and co-operation from the Working Together 2010 guidance
could potentially go a long way into helping members of the social services and
surrounding agencies feel like they have some help and support themselves. It
creates a supportive network for the professionals themselves and a sense of
relief from the overload of responsibilities.[55]
Year after year there had been far too many communication breakdowns meaning
that crucial information had not been passed on or acted on when it had been
received. Back in the 1990 in an enlightened experiment, a North London Police
Child Protection unit and a team of social workers were housed together in
Havering. For many this made perfect sense. It creates rapid face to face
meetings, information exchanges and allowed agencies to travel together to
visits. However for reasons to do with funding and other unknown reasons this
was not implemented across the country. For many this is the perfect way to
reform the country. If you were to put some of the agencies together it would
allow communication and inter-agency co-operation to be much easier to deal
with. It might also make agencies more understanding with regards to how other
agencies deal with things and what they have to cope with.
ContactPoint was a government database that held information on all
children under 18. It was created in response to the Climbié inquiry and aimed to improve child protection by improving the way information about children was shared
between services. The database, created under the Children Act 2004[56] was turned off in July 2010
following the election of the new coalition government. It was decided it was
not needed and hindered privacy laws. Although some people feel
that bringing back ContactPoint or a system similar would drastically help the
sharing of information in this country. Even though it was deemed to have
issues relating to privacy many would argue that these can be fixed and that it
the system did more positive than it did negative. A poll from YouGov stated
that a slight majority of people thought it was better to keep the system than
the get rid of it. [57]
Overall the system in this country for dealing with child abuse has
evolved quite dramatically over the past twenty years. With the presence of
hindsight and the many public inquiries people could now see where and what was
going wrong. Some people feel there has been a vast amount of trial and error
but that now with the guidance Working Together 2010 along with the current
Children Act 2004 laws and legislation are in order to promote the inter-agency
relationships which in the future will encourage a better safeguarding of
children. Possible impending reforms could include bringing back the system of
ContactPoint as that would aid the information sharing system currently in
place. Others argue that it is merely a lack of resources which currently
hinders the process. Either way, everyone hopes that the numbers of child abuse
cases and infant mortalities decreases in the upcoming years and that the
country does not call for another public inquiry anytime soon.
[1]
House of Commons Health Committee ‘The Victoria Climbié Inquiry Report’ ,Sixth
Report of Session 2002–03 extracted from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmhealth/570/570.pdf
[2] (1973)
[3] (1984)
[4] (1986)
[5] (1992)
[6] (1999)
[7] (2000)
[8] (2007)
[9]
Department of Health and Social Security, Court Report, 1976
[10] Report of
the Inquiry into the death of Maria Colwell, 1974
[11] ‘Child
Abuse: a study of inquiry reports, 1973-1981’, Great Britain. Dept. of Health and Social Security,
1982
[12] NSPCC,
‘An introduction to child protection legislation in the UK’, October 2011
assessed via:
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/questions/child_protection_legislation_in_the_uk
[13]
(1987)
[14]
The Cleveland Child Abuse Scandal (1987) 121 cases of suspected child abuse
were diagnosed by two paediatricians at Middlesbrough hospital. After a number
of court trials, 26 cases involving children from twelve families were found by
judges to have been incorrectly diagnosed, and cases involving 96 of the 121
children alleged to be victims of sexual abuse were dismissed by the courts.
[15]
Sally Cosstick, ‘An overview of the British Child Welfare System’, 1995, Southampton City Council Social Services
[16] CA 1989
section 47 1(b)
[17] CA 1989
section37 1
[18] This can
be seen in Nottingham CC v P (1993) 2 FLR 134
[19] Bainham
[2011] Fam Law 374
[20]
Human Rights Act 1998 section 2(1), Decisions of the European Court of Human
Rights must be taken into account by the courts in England.
[21]
Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8
[22]
Paul Craig, ‘EU LAW- texts, cases and materials’, 4th edition,
[Oxford University Press; Oxford; 2008] p471
[23] [2004] 2
FLR 39
[24]
Kate Standley, ‘Family Law’, [Palgave Macmillan Law Masters; Hampshire; 2010]
p.269
[25]
Department of Health and The Home Office, The Victoria Climbié Inquiry, Report
of an Inquiry by Lord Laming, Cm 5730, January 2000
[26]
Terri Judd, ‘Social Workers in Climbie case are fired’, Independent, 13
November 2002
[27] At the public
inquiry, counsel to the hearings Neil Garnham QC outlined a dozen occasions
when authorities had a chance to intervene. Assessed from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2122256.stm 11/07/2002
[28]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2122256.stm 11/07/2002
[29]
PC Karen Jones
[30]
‘Police “cancelled visit to little girl’s home for fear of catching scabies”’,
Matthew Beard, Independent, 25 November 2000
[31]
2003
[32]
Published in September 2003
[33]
Published early 2004
[34]
Published November 2004
[35]Margaret
O’Brien, ‘Integrating Children’s Services to Promote Children’s Welfare: Early
Findings from the Implementation of Children’s Trusts in England’, Child Abuse
Review Vol. 15: 377–395 (2006) assessed via Wiley InterScience www.interscience.wiley.com
[36]
Sanders R, ‘The Movement of Child Protection Services’, [Ashgate; Oxford; 2000]
p143
[37]
White, Carr and Lowe, ‘The Children Act in Practice’, [Balliere & Tindall;
London; 2008] p183-185
[38]
Children’s Trusts partners include the National Health Service Primary Care
Trusts, Connexions, Youth Offending Teams and Sure Start local programme.
[39]
These include local authorities, National Health Service bodies, the police,
Cafcass and other agencies.
[40]
CA 2004 section10
[41] Ofsted,
‘Safeguarding Children’, assessed via www.safeguardingchildren.org.uk
[42]
Working Together to Safeguard Children: A Guide to inter-agency working to safeguard
and promote the welfare of children 2006 now reformed from 2010
[43]
As noted
in Section10 4(b) Children Act 2004
[44] Noted in
a speech by Children’s Minister Ed Balls
[45] Wilkinson
[2009] Fam Law 420
[46] Lord
Laming’s progress report ‘The Protection of Children in England’ (2008)
[47]
Para 5.8, ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ 2010
[48]
Jennie Lindon, ‘Child Protection and Early Years Work’, 6th Edition,
[Hodder & Stroughton Educational; London, 2005], p142
[49]
Re U
(A Child) (Serious Injury: Standard of Proof) [2004] 2 FCR; Re W (A child)
(Non-accidental Injury) (Expert evidence) [2005] 3 FCR 513
[50] Heather Flynn and Barbara Starns, ‘Protecting
Children: Working Together to Keep Children Safe’, [Heinemann; Oxford; 2004],
p.13
[51]
Para. 5.25- 2.28 ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ 2010
[52]
Harry Keeble with Kris Hollington, ‘Baby X’, [Pocket Books; London; 2010], p158
[53] Sir William
Utting ‘Report of the Inquiry into the Child Abuse in Cleveland’,
1997
[54] Harry
Keeble, ‘Baby X’ p21
[55] Davis [2011] Fam Law 43
[56] Section 12 of the Children Act
2004 enabled the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to
publish regulations which require local authorities in England to establish and
operate a database, or databases, that contain information about children and
young people in relation to the duties set out in sections 10 and 11 of the Act
[57]
Hannah Thompson, ‘No consensus for Contactpoint’, August 11th 2002
assessed via http://labs.yougov.co.uk/news/2010/08/11/no-consensus-contactpoint/
No comments:
Post a Comment