text:
Tag Archives: attachment
Extension of the proceedings for 6 months
I have to say that when I first read Re P (A child) 2018 I thought it was of limited interest and value and incredibly fact-specific, but I am aware that this is not how it is being viewed by some, and therefore felt it might warrant a blog post.
This is a Court of Appeal decision from an original decision from Her Honour Judge Probyn (who used to sit in my local area, and whom I like)
At the time of the final hearing, the child was 7 months old. There were two older children who had been removed as a result of mother's alcoholism and findings that the mother had told significant lies during those proceedings.
The mother, who had been a long-standing alcoholic, was seeking an extension of the proceedings for six months. HHJ Probyn refused that and made a Placement Order, mother appealed. It is a very unusual set of facts, in that by the time of the final hearing, the mother had been abstinent for 13 months (i.e she had got dry when she learned of the pregnancy and was still dry at the time of the final hearing. The expert in the case had spoken about having a reasonable degree of confidence that abstinence could endure after an 18 month period (which is not that uncommon, and hence why mother was seeking a further 6 months to show that she could continue to maintain abstinence)
My immediate ball-park feeling is that the right outcome in the care proceedings would have been to make a Supervision Order, with further testing, and the case to be brought back to Court if mother relapsed, rather than continue with ICOs for a further 6 months. I can't think of a case I've ever had where a parent had 13 months of abstinence where a plan of adoption would have been granted.
(Hence my original view that the case was so fact-specific that it would be of no wider value)
By the time the appeal was heard, the 6 months had passed (of course) and mother had maintained her abstinence, so the appeal was always likely to succeed (and appealing on 'give me more time' became rather nugatory).
In terms of the adjournment
For the purposes of considering whether or not the mother could make the necessary changes within the child's timescale, the period in question is a delay of six months in relation to a baby of seven months of age.
The courts are often faced with cases where the judge is told that some sort of therapy may result in a mother being able to parent her child, which therapy has not yet begun and will take an indeterminate period, often 18 months to 3 years. I accept that in such a case a plea for 'more time' by a mother serves no purpose but to put off the inevitable, to the detriment of the child in question.
This court was faced with a very different situation. Not only had the mother been abstinent for 13 months but, in contrast to her earlier period of abstinence, she was, even on the local authority's own case, now energetically cooperating with the follow-up. More importantly, there was an a new, and genuine, acceptance by her and insight on her part into both her alcoholism and its impact upon her child's welfare.
This proposed adjournment therefore not only tests out the mother's ability to remain sober for the further six months, but also to judge her continued commitment to AA and the specialist rehabilitation service and to see whether the personality stability which had come with sobriety would be maintained. Most importantly from the local authority's point of view, the adjournment would give the local authority and Dr Hallstrom an opportunity to see if the developing insight shown by the mother was capable of developing into an honest working relationship with the local authority such that, in the event that the mother has a "setback", (which is by no means to be ruled out) she could be trusted to seek help in the interests of L.
In my judgment there was a clear purpose in the adjournment, namely whether, within L's reasonable timescales, the mother could capitalise on the considerable progress she had made such as to allow L to live with her mother. The outcome at the end of a further six months was not as the judge believed, inevitable and I am satisfied that, on the evidence before the court, there was a sufficient prospect of the court being in a position to decide that L could be safely placed with her mother to justify the adjournment.
The Court of Appeal considered that given the progress mother had made, a Placement Order was not the right order.
That therefore leaves the question (Question 3) as to whether there was a "solid" evidence based reason to believe that the parent would be able to make the necessary changes within L's timescale. It goes without saying that one "necessary change" would be the ability of the mother to satisfy the court that the combination of sobriety and further insight would allow the court to be satisfied that the risk to L, in the event that the mother has a relapse is manageable, and that the mother would be honest with the local authority and in such circumstances seek help at the earliest possible opportunity. In my judgment there is indeed 'some solid evidence based reason to believe that the mother will be able to make the necessary changes within the child's time scale".
In my judgment, had the judge, even in a couple of paragraphs, once she had rejected the application for an adjournment, gone on to consider all circumstances of the case by reference to the law in relation to placement orders that she had so carefully set out earlier in her judgment, she may well have hesitated again before concluding that L's welfare "required" the severing of her relationship with her mother without more ado.
I for my part, whilst fully accepting the legitimate concerns and doubts expressed by the local authority and the Children's Guardian, cannot see how at that stage, L's welfare required the breaking off of all L's ties to her mother and full sister and in my judgment, the making of a placement order was a disproportionate outcome in all the circumstances of the case.
The wider point is made by the Court of Appeal at the end, being critical that the LA went ahead and reduced contact from four times per week to once per month and ended their support and assessment – the Court of Appeal suggest that once permission to appeal had been granted, the LA would have been wiser to have been active in the case and engaged with the mother.
In conclusion, I note that by the time the appeal came on last week, the six month period sought by the mother had been and gone. The mother has remained sober throughout. The local authority, as already noted, has provided no support to the mother in the interim period and more particularly has not carried out any form of updating assessment of her because, Ms Connell told the court, their case remains that the mother cannot be trusted to be open and honest and the risk to L in the event of a relapse is therefore too great to allow them to reconsider their position, even now. They have, they said, shown good faith in reducing contact from four times a week to once a week rather than once a month which had been their original plan pending placement.
I hope that the local authority may, on reflection, regret that approach and on reviewing the case conclude that in the interests of L, once Moylan LJ had granted permission to appeal, the better way would have been once again to have become active in the case, and to have engaged with the mother in order to see whether, their worst fears about the mother continued to be justified such that in the best interests of L the last resort of adoption remained the only option.
Now, I shall come to the passages which are attracting some attention beyond the very fact-specific elements of this case. It is obviously unusual to seek a 6 month extension to care proceedings, particularly post the Children and Families Act 2014 (I still think making a Supervision Order was the right approach, rather than adjourning for 6 months), but there are passages here dealing with that, and which some might suggest have broad applicabililty. (I think not, but we shall watch and see)
It is undoubtedly the case that all this was very recent, but it is important to note that the judge did not find that the mother was simply saying what the judge wanted to hear. The judge [107] accepted that the mother was showing insight and that there were 'green shoots'. One can quite see that had the only options facing the judge been immediate rehabilitation or a placement order, then she may well have been driven to conclude that it was too little too late. It is however hard to see how, given that sobriety and honesty are inevitably intrinsically woven in together, a period of six months would have done other than to allow the local authority and Dr Hallstrom not only to see if she remained sober, but also whether the "green shoots "and developing insight could now lead to the sort of working relationship, co-operation, and therefore trust, that the local authority rightly regard as essential if the risk of a future relapse is properly to be managed.
In my judgment the appellant is correct in her submission that whilst the history is of considerable importance, too much emphasis was placed on the historic lies to the extent that the judge seemed to regard this feature alone as determinative of the case. There was, as a consequence, a failure properly to set those undoubted and serious concerns against the genuine and significant progress made by the mother. If this progress was maintained the mother's likely future level of honesty could be assessed in the context of sobriety and with a developing understanding and insight as against her historic drunkenness and lack of insight.
Similarly in [111] the judge factored in, without more:
(i) the "risk of serious emotional and physical harm to L," but the risk of emotional and physical harm would only arise in the event that L was rehabilitated to the mother. It was therefore not a factor at this stage, namely the consideration of the application to adjourn, but would become important only at final care order and placement order stage.
(ii) the "risk of further damage to her attachment needs" The evidence in relation to attachment is recorded by the judge in her judgment at [91] namely that:
"…L is a baby of some six months and who over the coming months will be at a crucial stage in terms of her attachment development"
Contrary to the judge's judgment, there was no evidence that L had suffered attachment damage. On the contrary, the Children's Guardian had observed L to be well attached to the foster carer and therefore able to make secure attachments in the future. Whilst delay is always inimical to a child's interests, there is nothing in L's history or life experiences to date to suggest that her position is any different to any other child of 6 months. The sooner L (in common with all children in her position) is settled with a permanent primary carer the better. However, the generally accepted critical period for forming long term secure attachments would not have been be fatally compromised in L's case to such that delay had, in her interests to be, to all intents and purposes, the determining factor. This was particularly so in circumstances where it was common ground that adopters could be identified quickly following the making of a placement order (and indeed following the making of the placement order now challenged, prospective adopters were identified within a matter of weeks).
In weighing up the issue of attachment the judge in my judgment fell into error in that she did not mention the fact that the mother was having good quality contact 4 times a week, or to the high praise given to her by L's very experienced foster carer, evidence in my judgment of considerable significance when considering L's timescales and that the alternative was adoption
There is some school of thought that paragraph 47 opens the door wide for extensions of care proceedings beyond 26 weeks when dealing with an infant, because unless there is specific evidence of attachment problems, the crucial window of attachment development is not fatally compromised by extending proceedings. And thus, delay arguments are greatly diminished.
I instead read that to be that when balancing the two factors, in this fact specific case of a mother who had been abstinent for 13 months, a delay of 6 months was better for this child and a realistic option to be preferred to the most dramatic and permanent order of adoption. Delay in this case was not and should not have been the determining factor. I don't think that Re P bears that weight that some might put upon it , that it is carte blanche for extensions of proceedings if the child is under 1 and showing no attachment damage. Both of the Acts still stand. Delay generally is harmful to children and must be justified and extensions beyond 26 weeks must only take place if to resolve the proceedings justly.
Expect, however, to see Re P wending its way into skeletons and position statements, and there being yet more boilerplate passages in judgments.
(I hope I've made it plain that my view is that Placement Order was not the right order in this case – I just don't think paragraph 47 can be lifted wholesale into other cases where the facts are so different. It clearly has very direct application to a case where a parent has a substantial period of abstinence under their belt pre-dating the proceedings and it is being argued that because more time is needed to be sure the abstinence will last the child should not wait.
Posted in case law and tagged 2018 EWCA Civ 1483; delay, 26 weeks, abstinence, appeal, attachment, attachment damage, delay, extensions of 26 weeks, Re P a child 2018, testing abstinence. Bookmark the permalink.
Is, Was and Ever Will Be
Posted on June 7, 2018 by suesspiciousminds
This is a Court of Appeal decision in relation to significant harm in care proceedings, where the harm was said to be emotional harm. And this is always a hot-button topic.
Re S & H-S Children 2018
It also deals with the grammatical weirdness that is in the Children Act at section 31, which we all tend to forget to an extent. The Act never talks about whether the child 'has suffered' significant harm, although that's the language that we all use. Instead it says "Is suffering" and the law has subsequently developed to say that you are looking at the past, to when protective measures were taken as the relevant date. (That was a solution derived because care proceedings were being issued where a child had suffered significant harm and then gone into foster care or been placed with a relative – so on the day of issue, it would be inaccurate to say that the child 'is suffering' significant harm. So we routinely use the present tense of the Act to talk about the past tense of the relevant date)
In these proceedings, they were initiated on the basis of allegations about the children being physically harmed by father, and the LA accepted freely that at the time the proceedings started, they had no intention of issuing proceedings in relation to mother's care. The allegations about father fell away – the Court found that he had physically chastised them, but left no marks, and that they had not suffered significant harm as a result of his chastisement and it was not over-chastisement.
However, within the proceedings, the assessments that took place highlighted emotional harm, and in particular the children's poor attachment to their mother. The Court found that the children had suffered emotional harm.
The appeal was brought on the following points
The mother's grounds for appeal represent a root and branch challenge to the judge's conclusion with respect to the threshold criteria relating to the child L. In summary, the following points are made:
a) The proceedings were commenced in response to allegations of physical harm to the older two children perpetrated by their father. Those allegations were, in the event, not found proved in the terms of the threshold. The stress of the proceedings, however, triggered a marked deterioration in the mother's mental well-being to the extent that, by the end of the proceedings, she conceded that she could not at that time provide a home for any of the children. The judge is criticised for failing to distinguish between the mother's presentation and her parenting prior to the relevant threshold date of 9th March 2015, and the compromised state that she descended into thereafter during the proceedings.
b) Evidence from social workers, community support workers and health visitors prior to 9 March, insofar as it mentioned the mother and L, was positive and gave no cause for concern.
c) It was conceded by the local authority that no social worker was contemplating issuing care proceedings with respect to the mother's care of the children as at 9 March 2017.
d) The judge wrongly equated a perceived lack of attachment between the mother and L with the establishment of "significant harm".
e) A failure to follow the guidance given by the Supreme Court in Re B to the effect that it is necessary for a judge to identify a precisely as possible the nature of the harm that L was suffering or likely to suffer as at 9 March 2017.
So you can see that timing is important. At the time proceedings were issued, one could not now say that the children 'is suffering significant harm' (I know, the tenses make me feel queasy too. I wish the Act just said 'has suffered' but it doesn't.) Any harm actually occurred within the proceedings. So the first limb isn't met, and the LA would have to rely on the second limb, that there's a likelihood of harm in the future.
The other bit I'm interested in is
We hear a lot about attachment in care proceedings, and an awful lot of what we hear is misusing terminology and confusing quality of relationship or emotional closeness with attachment, which is not something you can assess by reading some contact notes or watching mum play with a toddler. We also hear a lot about attachment problems without ever giving the context of how prevalent poor attachment is in the general population. Trust me, I'm not saying that flawed attachment has no impact on a child's childhood and later life (seriously, trust me, I'm well aware of how many of my own problems are due to exactly this issue), but one needs to be careful if pathologising something which is not that unusual. Remember, the wording of the Act says that the harm has to be attributable to the parent not providing care which it would be reasonable for a parent to provide – if a third of parents in the general population have difficult attachment styles, whilst that may be harming the child, is the parent culpable and behaving unreasonably?
The Court of Appeal said this :-
Before this court Mr Taylor has advanced the mother's case with force and clarity both in his skeleton argument and at the oral hearing. He seeks to establish five basic submissions:
i) The lack of clear and bright reasoning within the judgment falls so far short of what is required so as to amount to an unfair process.
ii) The judgment confuses evidence as to the state of affairs prior to 9 March with evidence of what consequently occurred as a result of the mother's mental collapse during the proceedings.
iii) The necessary process of evaluation of the threshold criteria, as required by Re B, has not been undertaken.
iv) The findings made by the judge as to the mother's character are insufficient of themselves to support a finding on the threshold criteria.
v) Various findings made by the judge with respect to other aspects of the case are insufficient to support a finding of threshold with respect to L.
The appeal is opposed by the local authority and the children's guardian. L's father takes a neutral stance.
Looking at the mother's appeal in more detail, it is, unfortunately, correct that both the judgment and the court order lack clarity with respect to the judge's findings as to threshold relating to L. The following points are, in my view, established in the appellant's favour:
a) The judgment makes no reference to the judge's previous findings as to the mother's psychological well being set out in her judgments of 11 November 2015 and 4 July 2016.
b) The judge's finding (paragraph 106) that "the attachment difficulties seen in the children…are evidence of emotional harm" does not expressly amount to a finding of "significant" harm as required by s 31.
c) Paragraph 107, which is lengthy, includes reference to material arising both prior to 9 March and, thereafter, during the proceedings. Again, the finding in that paragraph relates to "emotional harm" and not "significant harm".
d) Although the phrase "significant harm" appears in paragraph 109, the judge there refers to "the other factor relevant to whether the children have suffered significant harm as a result of the mother's presentation" and describes the emotional impact on the children of the mother raising the allegations of physical chastisement which, in turn, led to the institution of proceedings. Paragraph 109 does not make a finding that the children did suffer "significant harm" in this respect. The finding is that the mother's past behaviour "cause(s) me to think she will continue to have anxieties about the care of her children and therefore potentially undermine any placement of the children away from her care".
e) Paragraph 110 does include a finding that the mother's emotional stability and her presentation are such that "the children have suffered from significant emotional harm". The finding is not, in that paragraph, tied to the period prior to 9 March and there is no finding with respect to likely future significant harm.
f) As Miss Gillian Irving QC and Mr Zimran Samuel for the local authority before this court who did not appear below, reluctantly concede, the judge's statement of "threshold findings" posted at the end of the judgment cannot, as a matter of law, be said to satisfy the requirements of s 31. The paragraph is confined to a summary of the judge's findings as to the mother's mental well being both now and in the future. The paragraph does not contain any explanation for the judge's finding that as a result of the mother's condition the children have suffered significant harm.
g) The court order, which simply records the making of care orders, fails to include any recital as to the court's findings with respect to the threshold criteria.
The Court of Appeal were critical of the Judge's failings in the judgment, particularly the conflation of emotional harm and significant harm, and linking the comments on harm to the wording of the Act.
As the extracts that I have set out from Dr Hall's written and oral evidence demonstrate, the attachment that these children, including L, had with their mother was compromised to a significant degree so that it was on the borderline of being characterised as disordered. Dr Hall's opinion was that without secure attachment the children would suffer significant detriment, not only to their emotional and psychological functioning, but to the very development of their brain during infancy.
The attachment, or lack of it, formed between L and her mother must relate to the period when L was in her mother's care prior to 9 March 2017. It arose from core intrinsic elements in the mother's psychological makeup, rather than arising from the recent collapse in the mother's mental health. Dr Hall's description of the mother being unable to control her emotional reaction to relationships and events with unpredictable and regular oscillation between the extremes of hyper-arousal and hypo-arousal, accords entirely, as she herself said it did, with the mother's presentation as recorded by the previous expert in 2014.
It is clear that the evidence upon which the judge relied, and her findings, relate to the mother's long-standing condition and its impact on the children, rather than any deterioration that occurred during the proceedings.
This material amply supports a finding that L was suffering significant emotional harm as at 9 March 2017 and would be likely to suffer significant emotional harm in the future as a result of the care provided by her mother were she to return to the mother's home. Although, for the reasons that I have given, the judge's judgment lacks precision and clarity, there is in my view, sufficient in paragraphs 106 to 110 of the judgment to identify the threshold findings made by the judge in this regard.
In the circumstances, whilst accepting, as I do, the validity of the criticisms that Mr Taylor makes as to the lack of clarity and focus in the judge's analysis, Dr Hall's evidence and the judge's previous findings as to the mother's behaviour provided a very solid basis for finding the threshold established and it is plain that the judge adopted that analysis, which was in part based upon her own findings made two years earlier, in concluding that the threshold was crossed with respect to L in this case.
For the reasons I have given, I would, therefore, dismiss this appeal and uphold the judge's finding that the threshold criteria in CA 1989 s 31 was established as at 9 March 2017 with respect to L as a result of the care given by her mother on the basis that, at that date, L was suffering significant emotional harm and was likely to suffer significant emotional harm.
Note that even though the Court of Appeal are telling the Judge off for not using 'is suffering' as the test, they themselves slip readily into the language 'was suffering'. It is almost impossible not to do it.
(I was somewhat surprised that this appeal didn't succeed – on my reading there were enough failings in the judgment to overturn it, but the Court of Appeal felt that there was sufficient cogency to the judgment in full that they could apply a little bit of Polyfilla to the cracks, rather than declaring that it was so flawed it had to be reheard. I can see that they considered that it was slightly loose use of language rather than a failure to identify whether the children met the s31 test)
The Court of Appeal gave a coda of lessons to be learned (whilst not noting that they'd not followed their own lessons in the very same judgment, cough)
Lessons for the Future?
Before leaving this case, and with Lady Hale's more detailed judgment in Re B in mind, I hope it is helpful to make the following observations as to how the difficulties that have led to this appeal could have been avoided in practice.
In the course of a necessarily long judgment covering a range of issues and a substantial body of evidence, where the threshold criteria are in issue, it is good practice to distil the findings that may have been made in previous paragraphs into one or two short and carefully structured paragraphs which spell out the court's finding on threshold identifying whether the finding is that the child 'is suffering' and/or 'is likely to suffer' significant harm, specifying the category of harm and the basic finding(s) as to causation.
When making a finding of harm, it is important to identify whether the finding is of 'significant harm' or simply 'harm'.
A finding that the child 'has suffered significant harm' is not a relevant finding for s 31, which looks to the 'relevant date' and the need to determine whether the child 'is suffering' or 'is likely to suffer' significant harm.
Where findings have been made in previous proceedings, either before the same judge or a different tribunal, a judgment in subsequent proceedings should make reference to any relevant earlier findings and identify which, if any, are specifically relied upon in support of a finding that the threshold criteria are satisfied in the later proceedings as at the 'relevant date'.
At the conclusion of the hearing, after judgment has been given, there is a duty on counsel for the local authority and for the child, together with the judge, to ensure that any findings as to the threshold criteria are sufficiently clear.
The court order that records the making of a care order should include within it, or have annexed to it, a clear statement of the basis upon which the s 31 threshold criteria have been established. In the present case, during the oral appeal hearing, counsel for the guardian explained that, following the judgment, she had submitted a detailed draft order to the court by email for the judge's approval. We were shown the draft which, whilst in need of fine tuning, does provide a template account of the court's threshold findings. It is most unfortunate that counsel's email, which may not have been seen by the judge, did not result in further consideration of the form of the order and statement of threshold findings. Had it done so, the need for the present appeal may not have arisen.
Posted in case law, emotional harm, threshold criteria and tagged attachment, Court of Appeal, emotional harm, has suffered, is suffering, Re S and H-S children 2018, relevant date. Bookmark the permalink.
Taking neglect seriously
Posted on November 5, 2012 by suesspiciousminds
Some interesting research about children's timescales and the Court process, which has been conducted by the Childhood Wellbeing Research Council. It is the first piece of the research that was commissioned under the Family Justice Review, and therefore worthy of attention. (More attention than it has received)
It is heavy, and I can't say yet whether its conclusions will necessarily be unchallenged, but it is, I think, for the first time, a proper drawing together of all of the important research on delay, decision-making, impact of neglect on children and attachment issues. If the other pieces of FJR research are going to be as important as this, I will be a very happy law geek.
http://www.cwrc.ac.uk/news/documents/Decision_making_within_a_childs_timeframe_Oct_2012_CWRC_WP_16.pdf
It is long and detailed, so my cursory summary of it is absolutely no substitute for reading it. It also contains some important research about the impact of child abuse, particularly neglect, on children. A lot of it is pulling together of research that is already out there, but might be less widely known than it should be.
1.1 This overview of research evidence has been commissioned in response to the Family Justice Review recommendation for consistent training and development for family justice professionals, including a greater emphasis on child development. It aims to bring together key research evidence to facilitate understanding among professionals working in the family justice system in areas relating to:
· neuroscience perspectives on children's cognitive, social and emotional development;
· the implications of maltreatment on childhood and adulthood wellbeing;
· evidence concerning the outcomes of interventions by the courts and children's social care; and
· timeframes for intervening and why they are out of kilter with those for children.
I am hoping to whet your appetite to read the research, because this is some big important stuff. (I will stop nudging you in the ribs at some point, but really, this needs to be read)
1.19 While the issues covered in this chapter are intended to help the reader develop a critical approach to the understanding of research findings they should not detract from the value of the research itself. The following chapters consider robust findings from a number of well received research studies into parents' problems and the impact of abuse on early childhood development; family justice professionals need to be aware of this research, particularly because it points to the importance of making timely decisions when children are suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm.
We start with some basic principles (the first few are of the "no-s*** Sherlock variety, but the last two are perhaps startling to see in such stark form)
Summary points
· Children growing up with parents who experience problems such as mental illness, learning disability, substance misuse and domestic violence are at greater risk of being maltreated.
· Not all parents with these problems will abuse or neglect their children; however these factors interlock in complex combinations which substantially increase the likelihood of maltreatment.
· Protective factors such as the presence of a non-abusive partner and/or a supportive extended family, parents' ability to understand and overcome the consequences of their own experiences of childhood abuse, their recognition that their adverse behaviour patterns constitute a problem and their willingness to engage with services can substantially reduce the likelihood of maltreatment.
· Where insufficient protective factors are present, parents' problems can undermine their ability to meet the needs of their children and inhibit the child's capacity to form secure attachments.
· Healthy child development depends on the child's relationships, and particularly their attachment to the primary caregiver.
· The process of attachment formation begins at birth. The four basic attachment styles: secure, insecure ambivalent, insecure avoidant and disorganised illustrate different adaptive strategies in response to different types of caregiving.
· Up to 80% of children brought up in neglectful or abusive environments develop disorganised attachment styles. These children behave unpredictably and have difficulty regulating their emotions.
· Disorganised attachment is strongly associated with later psychopathology.
This is interesting :-
The risk of recurrence (of child abuse) was reduced when medical and/or legal services were involved.
So the PLO may have been onto something, when they wanted to draw lawyers for parents into the process earlier – it is just a shame that the funding system means that they really can't come in until proceedings are almost inevitable, rather than at the Initial Assessment process, when legal advice could make a real difference.
The mitigating value of protective factors
2.10 There is substantial evidence that certain protective factors can interact positively with parental problems to mitigate their impact, thus reducing the likelihood of maltreatment and improving the chances of better long-term outcomes for children. Jones and colleaguesidentified the following factors to be particularly pertinent: the presence of a non-abusive partner; the presence of a supportive extended family; parents' adaptation to their own experience of childhood abuse; parents' recognition that there is a problem and their willingness to take responsibility for it; and parents' willingness to engage with services.
Whilst these are all things that we intuitively look at in care proceedings, it is helpful to see that the things we take for granted as common sense protective factors actually are. And the phrase 'insight', which we hear so often, really is instrinsically bundled up in this.
[I do wonder, on a 26 week timetable, how the "Ostriches" – those parents who bury their heads in the sand and pretend none of this awful situation is happening to them, before finally realising, will fare. I suspect that there will no longer be enough time to turn the Ostrich cases around to a positive outcome]
2.11 Cleaver and colleagues40 have provided a comprehensive analysis of the manner in which, where there are insufficient protective factors, parents' problems can impact on parenting capacity and trigger maltreatment and poor child outcomes. To summarise:
· Parental mental illness can seriously affect functioning. For example someone suffering from schizophrenia can experience delusions and hallucinations and be preoccupied with a private world. A person who is depressed can have feelings of gloom, worthlessness and hopelessness, which may mean that everyday activities are not carried out. Mental illness can blunt parents' emotions and feelings towards their children, cause them to be emotionally unavailable or behave unpredictably, or occasionally cause them to be violent.
· Learning disability can affect parents' capacity to learn and retain the new skills that are necessary to parent a child. Parents with a learning disability may also have had a negative experience of their own childhood which can leave them with low self-esteem and a poor sense of self-worth. Consequently, parents with learning disabilities and their children are vulnerable to financial and sexual exploitation, domestic violence, harassment and bullying.
· Parents who abuse drugs and/or alcohol can be subject to erratic mood swings, paranoia and hallucinations, or feelings of elation and calm, diminished concentration, memory impairment and a loss of consciousness. This can leave them unable to: meet the basic needs of their children, be emotionally available to them or at times keep them safe.
· Being the victim of domestic violence is likely to undermine parents' self-esteem and confidence in their parenting skills. Such parents may have their attention focussed on the necessity to placate the perpetrator rather than on their children's needs. They may not be able to protect those of their children who get caught up in or witness an attack from physical abuse and emotional trauma. Perpetrators of domestic violence are likely to cause physical and emotional harm to their children as well as to their partners.
2.12 Behaviour patterns such as these undermine a parent's ability to meet their children's needs. They have a particularly damaging impact on the child's emerging capacity to form attachments.
The report then goes on to specifically look at attachment issues – I think lawyers (and perhaps some others in the family justice system) are often a bit muddled about attachment, and what the significance or otherwise of it is. I often see it being conflated with an concept of whether the parent loves the child and vice versa. If you know a bit about attachment theory, not much of this is new, but it is helpful to have it pulled into one place and be able to take the Courts to this one document.
The importance of a secure attachment base for healthy child Development
Young children experience their world as an environment of relationships, and these relationships affect virtually all aspects of their development – intellectual, social, emotional, physical, behavioural, and moral.
2.13 Healthy child development depends on the establishment of these relationships. Early secure attachments contribute to the growth of a broad range of competencies, which can include: a love of learning; a comfortable sense of oneself; positive social skills; multiple successful relationships at later ages; and a sophisticated understanding of emotions, commitment, morality, and other aspects of human relationships.
2.14 Howe asserts that, biologically, attachment is a means of survival. It is defined as proximity seeking behaviour to an attachment figure, the primary caregiver, by a baby or child when he or she experiences discomfort such as pain, fear, cold or hunger.This behaviour is instinctive and is based on the assumption that the primary caregiver will be able to reduce the discomfort.
The baby gradually constructs an internal working model of themselves and of their primary caregiver on the basis of their caregiver's responses to their attachment needs:
These mental representations refer to the kind of memories, experiences, outcomes, feelings and knowledge about what tends to happen in relationships, particularly with attachment figures at times of need.
2.15 Thus, the primary purpose of an internal working model is to help regulate the negative emotions of fear, distress and anxiety triggered when a child feels insecure.
2.16 The process of attachment formation begins at birth. A newborn infant seeks care and protection through proximity to their attachment figures. Following birth, a baby is instantly alert to messages they receive about the world around them, such as those reflected in the face of their caregiver(s) and the way in which their urgent needs are met. From about the age of three months a baby is increasingly selective and begins to smile less readily for strangers, tending to target their attachment behaviours more accurately towards their significant carers. By the age of six to seven months, an infant can generally show a clear cut attachment to their primary caregiver(s), and will show distress and anxiety about being separated from them. For instance, infants of this age become less likely to tolerate being held by strangers. However, from this point onwards a securely attached infant is able to use their caregiver as a secure base for exploration.
2.17 During toddler and pre-school years children learn to define themselves and others in increasingly sophisticated ways. They develop their locomotive skills, their cognitive capacity, their communicating and negotiating abilities, and increase their knowledge and understanding of the perspectives of others. A child's secure foundations from infancy help them to achieve these developments.
2.18 Researchers have identified four basic attachment styles, each relating to the type of caregiving received. These are: secure, insecure ambivalent, insecure avoidant and disorganised. Each of these styles of attachment illustrates different adaptive strategies in response to different types of caregiving, and are developed by children to enable them to 'stay close and connected to their attachment figures at times of intense negative arousal'.
Whilst these categories are very useful in facilitating understanding of different attachment styles, it should be noted that in real life they are not entirely discrete entities; whilst some children will fall exclusively into one category, many children will show a mixed pattern of attachment behaviours, with elements of several styles present.
2.19 Children who are securely attached to their caregiver(s) have a relationship that is characterised by sensitive, loving, responsive, attuned, consistent, available and accepting care.51 Securely attached children have the ability to regulate their distress, either by themselves or by the knowledge that they can get help from their attachment figure should they need it.
2.20 These children develop internal working models in which they see other people as positively available and themselves as loved and likeable, valued and socially effective.Secure attachment styles are found in about 55% of a non-clinical population.
2.21 Conversely, insecurely attached children experience anxiety about the location of their caregiver at times of need, as well as uncertainty about the type and sensitivity of the response they will receive.55 There are three types of insecure attachment patterns, the avoidant, the ambivalent and the disorganised.
2.22 Children who develop an insecure, ambivalent pattern of Attachment experience inconsistent caregiving. Their caregiver(s) tend to be preoccupied with their own emotional needs and uncertainties, and can be unreliable and emotionally neglectful. These children will exaggerate their attachment behaviour in an attempt to be noticed; in this they are not always successful, and their ambivalence reflects their simultaneous need for and anger with their attachment figures.56 About 8% of children in a non-clinical population display insecure ambivalent attachments.
2.23 About 23% of children develop insecure, avoidant attachment patterns.These children tend to experience parenting that is hostile, rejecting andcontrolling. They come to see themselves as neither loved nor loveable.They adapt to their caregivers' rejection by over-regulating their emotions,and are anxious that any display of need, longing, vulnerability or emotionmight drive their caregiver(s) away.59
2.24 Some caregivers cannot regulate their child's responses to stressful circumstances; as a result, their children experience feelings of danger and psychological abandonment.60 Children who are cared for by people who are frightening, dangerous and/or frightened develop disorganised attachments.61 These children may be fearful of approaching their caregivers because they cannot predict the response: sometimes they may be picked up and cuddled, but at other times they may be shouted at or smacked. As a result, these children are not able to 'organise' their own behaviour, and have difficulty regulating their emotions. Like their parents they may behave unpredictably. They develop highly negative and inconsistent internal working models in which they see other people as not to be trusted.
Disorganised attachment is strongly associated with later psychopathology.
There is consistent evidence that up to 80% of children brought up in neglectful or abusive environments develop disorganised attachments, although these are evident in only 15% of a non-clinical population.The effects of maltreatment on attachment behaviour will be discussed further in Chapters Three and Four.
Chapter 3 gets stuck into the neuroscience – what is happening with a child's brain during early years and what are the effects of neglect upon child development? I've felt for a while now that neglect is the poor cousin of child abuse – it is really easy to understand and grasp the risks of sexual abuse, or a fractured skull, but neglect is so easy to minimise and belittle and so hard to get a firm grasp on 'what will happen to the child if this situation persists rather than improves?'
A lot of the neuroscience bit may be a bit fresher than the attachment theory previously discussed, and I think it is very important in the way we look at neglect. It may help Courts take neglect as seriously as it needs to be taken.
How the child's relationships shape the development of the brain and the stress response system
· Much of the development of the brain and central nervous system takes place after a child is born, within the first three years of life.
· The child's environment of relationships – and in particular the relationship with the primary caregiver – plays a critical role in shaping the development of the overall brain architecture.
· Negative experiences, and in particular insufficient stimulation, adversely impact on the construction of neural connections which form the basis for cognitive and social development.
· By the time children are two, the foundations for their ability to speak and understand language, to reason and make plans have already been laid.
· Executive function skills, necessary for both learning and social interaction, begin to develop shortly after birth, with dramatic growth occurring between the ages of three and five years.
· There is a short window of opportunity for certain types of development. If the types of experience upon which they depend do not occur within a predetermined timeframe, children will not move on to the next stage of development and their long-term wellbeing will be compromised.
· Early interactions between the primary caregiver and the baby play a significant role in establishing the normal range of emotional arousal and in setting the thermostat for later control of the stress response.
· Both very high and very low levels of cortisol are indicative of abnormal development of the stress response and can cause long-term physiological and psychological damage.
[This last one is interesting, because it raises the possiblility of a biological/chemical test for neglect, that there's a chemical which can be measured and considered whether it is in normal parameters – and I suspect Trimega and Trichotech are already contemplating the marketing for their Cortisol tests… Are we ready for neglect to be determined by science? There's an entire blog post all on its own, I think]
3.14 The process of creating and strengthening or discarding synapses is the brain's means of learning and the way in which a child responds to their environment. This process is often referred to as 'plasticity', a term that indicates the brain's ability to change in response to repeated stimulation.
These repeated adaptations are made in response to a combination of genetics and experience. The brain is genetically pre-programmed to expect certain experiences and forms certain neural pathways to respond to them; the more the child is exposed to these experiences, the stronger the pathways become. For example, a baby's brain is genetically preprogrammed to respond to voices. When a baby is spoken to the neural systems which are responsible for their speech and language receive the necessary stimulation to strengthen. If, however, they are not exposed to adequate stimulation through exposure to speech, the pathways which have been developed in anticipation of this exposure will be discarded:
All children need stimulation and nurturance for healthy development. If these are lacking – if a child's caretakers are indifferent or hostile – the child's brain development may be impaired. Because the brain adapts to its environment, it will adapt to a negative environment just as readily as it will adapt to a positive one.83
3.15 A child's experiences greatly shape the quality of the architecture of the developing brain. Positive experiences, particularly in the first year of life, produce more richly networked brains. More neuronal connections produce better performance and more ability to use particular areas of the brain.
Conversely, as Chapter Four shows, negative experiences, and in particular insufficient stimulation, adversely affect the development of neural connections and have a negative impact on children's cognitive and social development, their speech development and their learning and memory.
3.18 The sequence of brain development follows a logical pattern. Development of the higher regions does not commence before the connections in the lower regions have been completed.92 This is because the higher levels in the hierarchy depend on reliable information from the lower levels in order to accomplish their functions.93 Impaired development in the lower regions of the brain will therefore have a negative impact on the development of the functions of the higher regions, such as language, empathy, regulation of emotions and reasoning.
This, for me, is a big deal. The research establishes that a major part of the formation of basic brain structure happens in the first few years of life, that positive experiences enhance this and negative ones hinder it, and that higher brain functions don't get formed until the basic ones are completed. So a baby that is being understimulated or mistreated will have serious consequences on that emotional development in later life.
This next bit also interested me
3.24 There are specific periods when the development of a child's brain is more strongly affected by a certain type of experience than at other times. These periods are widely referred to as sensitive periods. At certain times the impact of experience on development can be irreversible: these are a special class of sensitive period known as critical periods.
This is then the pulling together of research on the impact of stress and how it affects children. It is sciency but important
3.34 Everyday life involves responding and reacting to varying degrees of stress.
When an individual experiences stressful events, their body responds physiologically to restore a condition of equilibrium, or homeostasis.114 The body's stress response activates several interlocking biological systems designed to prepare an individual for events that may threaten their wellbeing.The hypothalamus, which is located in the centre of the brain, is involved in maintaining homeostasis, including responding to stressful events which upset regulatory rhythms. The amygdala reacts to social situations that generate uncertainty or fear by releasing chemical messages in various directions. The hypothalamus is activated by these messages, and in turn triggers the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis: the core stress response system.
3.35 The stress response involves activation of the pituitary, which in turn triggers the adrenal glands to produce extra cortisol. This allows the body to generate extra energy to focus on the stress and to put other bodily systems 'on hold' while this is being dealt with.
3.36 Chronically high levels of cortisol have detrimental effects on health. Therefore feedback loops are present to modulate the responsiveness of the HPA axis which returns the system to homeostasis. This feedback loop is mediated by receptors located, in the main, in the hippocampus. The purpose of this regulation is to produce adaptive responses to social and psychological stressors. These prepare the body to anticipate and respond optimally to threat but return efficiently to a homeostatic balance once the body is no longer challenged.
3.37 The stress response system is not fully mature at birth. It requires an extended period of development whereby experience plays a crucial role.
An important component of this development is a baby's attachment to their caregivers.When babies express feelings of distress or discomfort, they are dependent on their caregivers to notice these signals and to respond by providing the type of care which maintains their equilibrium, such as sensitive touch, feeding and rocking.122 A baby's stress response system is unstable and reactive; it will produce high levels of cortisol if the baby's needs are not being met, or if the baby is in an environment which is aggressive or hostile. Persistent and unrelieved chronic stress in infancy results in the baby's brain being flooded by cortisol for prolonged periods.
This can have a toxic effect on the developing brain, with detrimental consequences for future health and behaviour. Please see Chapter Four paragraphs 4.38 to 4.44 for further discussion relating to the toxic consequences of chronic stress.
3.38 In some children, however, prolonged exposure to stress may be linked to abnormally low levels of cortisol. This is particularly evident in those who have experienced low-grade, frequent emotional (and sometimes physical) abuse and neglect in very early childhood and is associated with early indications of anti-social behaviour in boys.
3.39 Both very high and very low levels of cortisol are indicative of abnormal development of the stress response, and cause long-term physiological and psychological damage.
3.40 A normal adult pattern of cortisol production is highest in the morning, and then gradually declines through the day to be at its lowest in the evening.
Babies who have secure attachments to their caregiver(s) will begin to form this pattern between three to six months old; however it takes until about the age of four years before it is fully established.126 Early interactions between primary caregiver and baby therefore play a significant role in how a child develops the capacity to respond appropriately to stressful circumstances and the ability to regulate their own negative emotions if and when these occur, such as following an immunisation injection, an injury, or on the first day at school.
3.41 This chapter has shown how the brain and stress response systems develop in early childhood and are shaped by the relationship with the primary caregiver. There are indications that when the caregiver does not respond appropriately to the child's needs, development can be impaired
Chapter Four then gets heavily stuck into the impact of child abuse on children and their development. Traditionally, this has been a difficult area, because there are obvious ethical reasons why you can't get a bunch of children and mistreat them under scientific conditions to see what happens, and you can never be certain when looking at children you suspect have been neglected exactly what did happen to them. But there was a group of children who we knew exactly how neglected they were, and those were the babies who grew up in Romanian orphanages that were effectively given very minimal care and no stimulation.
So some of the research is drawn from that. I haven't really discussed any of that, because it involves palpably worse neglect than we are used to seeing in a family court environment – the Romanian orphanages had a staffing ratio of 1 carer to every 20 children, and it is clear that one twentieth of a carers time (or 1 hour 12 mins per child per day), even if they are very dedicated and devoted and hardworking, isn't going to be enough for a baby, and even the worst of our neglectful parents must spend more than an hour and twelve minutes a day interacting with their baby.
Here is the summary for chapter four – note the last point about the correlation between childhood neglect and adult dysfunction. [To be balanced, no doubt a parallel could be drawn about children in the care system and adult dysfunction…]
· Exposure to domestic violence and/or parental substance misuse in utero can have a long-term negative impact on the unborn child.
· High quality care can determine the extent to which children who are genetically predisposed to mental illness or learning disability, or who are exposed to abusive or neglectful parental behaviours, are affected.
· Chronic exposure to trauma through aggressive, hostile or neglectful parenting can lead to stress system deregulation. Exposure to toxic stress in early childhood can cause permanent damage to the brain and have severe and long-term consequences for all aspects of future learning, behaviour and health.
· Neglected children may experience chronic exposure to toxic stress as their needs fail to be met. This is compounded by a lack of stimulation and social deprivation.
· Severe global neglect (i.e. severe neglect in more than one domain) during the first three years of life stunts the growth of the brain.
· Adults who have been physically abused in childhood show poorer physical and intellectual development, more difficult and aggressive behaviour, poorer social relationships and are more frequently arrested for violent crimes than their peers.
· Children who have been sexually abused may experience sleep problems, bedwetting or soiling, problems with school work or missing school, and risk taking behaviour in adolescence including multiple sexual relationships.
· Adolescents who have experienced abusive or neglectful parenting in childhood are more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviours such as substance misuse and criminal activity.
There's a discussion on emotional abuse which (perhaps appositely) is the most emotive form of reasons for State intervention in family life and the one which gets people hot under the collar, and is the one which opponents of the Family Justice system consider to be a trivial and unwarranted justification for State intervention. Note my underlining.
Emotional abuse and neglect
4.17 Emotional abuse is described as:
The persistent emotional maltreatment of a child such as to cause severe and persistent adverse effects on the child's emotional development. It may involve conveying to children that they are worthless or unloved, inadequate, or valued only insofar as they meet the needs of another person. It may include not giving the child opportunities to express their views, deliberately silencing them or making fun of what they say or how they communicate. It may feature age or developmentally inappropriate expectations being imposed on children. These may include interactions that are beyond the child's developmental capability, as well as overprotection and limitation of exploration and learning, or preventing the child participating in normal social interaction. It may involve seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another. It may involve serious bullying (including cyber-bullying), causing children frequently to feel frightened or in danger, or the exploitation or corruption of children. Some level of emotional abuse is involved in all types of maltreatment of a child, though it may occur alone.
4.18 Emotional abuse is often considered to be the most damaging of all forms of maltreatment in early childhood because the perpetrator is almost always the primary caregiver, and their abusive behaviour represents a direct negation of the child's 'need for safety, love, belonging and self esteem'.
The chapter discusses the professional difficulties in determining when neglect or emotional abuse reaches the stage when intervention is required. There are some big strong statements in here, which I have underlined.
4.20 Findings from the studies in the Safeguarding Research Initiative154 showed that practitioners found it difficult to identify emotional abuse and neglect and to decide when a threshold for action had been reached. These difficulties arose for a number of reasons:
• Both types of maltreatment are heterogeneous classifications that cover a wide range of issues.
• Both emotional abuse and neglect are chronic conditions that can persist over months and years. Professionals can become accustomed to their manifestations and accepting of the lack of positive change.
• Both types of maltreatment can persist for many years without leading to the type of crisis that demands immediate, authoritative action.
Without such a crisis it can be difficult to argue that a threshold for a child protection plan or court action has been reached.
• Both types of maltreatment are also closer to normative parental behaviour patterns than physical or sexual abuse, in that most parents will, on occasion, neglect or emotionally maltreat their children to a greater or lesser degree. It is the persistence, the frequency, the enormity and the pervasiveness of these behaviours that make them abusive.
4.21 Two systematic reviews of literaturethat explored the evidence in relation to neglect and emotional abuse concluded that these types of abuse are associated with the most damaging long-term consequences, yet they are also the most difficult to identify. Furthermore, relative to physically abused children, neglected children have more severe cognitive and academic deficits, social withdrawal and limited peer interactions, and internalising (as opposed to externalising) problems.
4.22 Child maltreatment is a public health issue, in that its prevalence has a negative impact not only on the individuals concerned, but also on the welfare of society as a whole. The consequences of child maltreatment can last over the course of a life time and negatively affect parenting capacity, with detrimental consequences for the next generation.
A consideration of when changes would be made is the next discussion
4.30 Ward and colleaguesstudied the life pathways of 43 infants who had been identified as likely to suffer significant harm before their first birthdays; two thirds of them had been identified before birth. This study found that those parents who were able to overcome issues affecting parenting capacity, such as substance misuse and domestic violence, had begun to address these during the pregnancy. This was often as a result of a revelatory moment when they realised they needed to make substantial changes to their lifestyles in order to protect their unborn child, and indeed to prevent the local authority from removing the baby from their care immediately following the birth. Those parents who were able to address all of their difficulties before their child was six months old were able to maintain these changes in the longer term – up to at least their child's third birthday. Parents who were interviewed as part of the evaluation of the Family Drug and Alcohol Court pilot also identified the birth of a child as a catalyst for overcoming adverse behaviour patterns.176 The findings from these studies suggest that there is a window of opportunity for social work and legal interventions during pregnancy and in the first few months following birth when parents may be more open to address adverse behaviour patterns.
The portions on "Toxic Stress" are interesting – this is a new term to me, and I suspect I will be hearing it more in the future. I'm starting to wonder whether paediatric neuroscience is going to be an expert discipline which has much more to tell us about neglect than the traditional psychological assessment that tells you nothing at great expense and delay.
Toxic stress
4.38 In addition, if inadequate or damaging parent-infant interactions persist, a child's stress response system can be activated over prolonged periods, producing chronically high levels of the stress hormone cortisol. Brief periods of moderate, predictable stress are not problematic. In fact, they are protective and essential for survival. However excessively high levels of stress and prolonged exposure to raised cortisol levels are harmful and have toxic consequences for the developing child's brain.186 A child's stress response system can be activated over prolonged periods if they continually feel threatened by aggressive or hostile parenting, including witnessing or hearing violence between caregivers, or if, as a result of neglectful parenting, their basic needs for food, warmth, nurture, care and affection are not met.
The stress response system starts to self-regulate at around six months, and persistent maltreatment may lead to poor emotional regulation and a maladaptive response to stress.
Toxic stress can result from strong, frequent, or prolonged activation of the body's stress response systems in the absence of the buffering protection of a supportive adult relationship.
4.39 Brain development can be altered by this type of stress, resulting in negativeconsequences for children's physical, cognitive, emotional, and socialgrowth.The ability of a child's brain to adapt to its environment,particularly during the first three years of life (and especially during the firstyear) makes it particularly sensitive to chemical changes. Therefore,persistently high levels of stress hormones, such as cortisol, can disrupt itsdeveloping architecture.190 Because the brain develops in certain setsequences (see paragraphs 3.16 to 3.18) early development impacts uponlater brain development. Therefore stress exposure early in life has thehighest potential for long-term dysfunction in neurobehavioral systems that mediate emotional responses, abstract thinking, and social interaction.
4.40 As Chapter Three has shown, the amygdala, hippocampus and prefrontal cortex regions of the brain are particularly sensitive to chronic stress (see paragraphs 3.34 to 3.41). This is because they contain an abundance of stress hormone receptors.Exposure to high levels of cortisol can cause cell damage which is reversible when exposure is brief, however when exposure is prolonged it can lead to cell death. Therefore permanent damage can be caused to these areas of the brain when a child is exposed to toxic stress.
4.41 Damage to the hippocampus can lead to impairments in memory and mood related functions, and limit the ability of the hippocampus to promote contextual learning, 'making it more difficult to discriminate conditions for which there may be danger versus safety, as is common in post-traumatic stress disorder'.It can also lead to problems in the development of linguistic, cognitive and social-emotional skills.
4.42 Chronic stress is also associated with over activity in the amygdala which then activates the stress response system. This can result in an increase in the potential for fear and anxiety. One task of the prefrontal cortex is to suppress amygdala activity, allowing for more adaptive responses to threatening or stressful experiences. However exposure to chronically elevated cortisol levels can damage the neural pathways between the prefrontal cortex and amygdala, limiting the ability of the prefrontal cortex to inhibit amygdala activity. As a result, children may appear, 'to be both more reactive to even mildly adverse experiences and less capable of effectively coping with future stress'.
The brain scans comparing a neglected child with a non-neglected child are staggering. I can't reproduce them here, but go and look at them.
The last sentence of this next section is also staggering. I had never contemplated childhood neglect having a correlation with the serious adult illnesses described here
Impact of maltreatment in later childhood and adolescence
4.50 Child abuse and neglect typically begin early in childhood; however the damage these experiences cause to all areas of development can have a cumulative effect on subsequent behaviour and health in later childhood and adolescence. Unsurprisingly, socially, emotionally and behaviourally impeded development attributed to abuse and neglect in the early years continues into middle and later childhood. Maltreated children may experience difficulties in coping with the social and academic demands of school and neglected children in particular may fall behind in their language and reading skills.Because subsequent development builds on previous milestones, abused and neglected children can continue to be challenged by normal developmental tasks.
4.51 During middle to late childhood caregiver(s) need to be good role-models and actively encourage sociable behaviour alongside firm and calm limit setting to promote good adjustment.212 Parenting which is harsh, rejecting or inconsistent is associated with poorer outcomes.213
4.52 Adolescence is a period of preparation for adulthood, when several key developmental tasks are encountered. These include physical and sexual maturation; movement towards social and economic independence; the development of identity; the acquisition of skills needed to carry out adult relationships and roles; and the capacity for abstract reasoning.
Adolescence can be a time of tremendous emotional, social and physical growth and potential, however for young people who have experienced abuse and neglect either in their past or present, this is a time of particular vulnerability.
4.53 The neglect of adolescents is a major issue that frequently goes unnoticed.Adolescents can be neglected by services as well as by their families. It is clear that neglect is age-related, and as children grow older it is defined not only by parental behaviours but also by the way in which young people experience them. Davies and Ward216 argue that some fundamental questions have barely been considered. For instance, there is little public debate or consensus as to what constitutes an acceptable level of supervision as children grow older. Furthermore, teenagers are the second most likely group of children to be the subject of a serious case review.
4.54 As children grow and develop into young adults, the cumulative effects of child abuse and neglect can have detrimental consequences for their health and welfare. Growth in the frontal lobe of the brain may be under developed in young people who have experienced abusive or neglectful parenting during their childhood. This may mean that they are more likely to engage in risk taking behaviour and live a generally unhealthy life style (see paragraph 3.17). For instance, abused and neglected adolescents are more likely to start drinking alcohol at a younger age and more likely to use alcohol as a way of coping with stress than for other social reasons.Exposure to maltreatment during childhood is also associated with tobacco use, illicit drug use, obesity and promiscuity in adolescence.
4.55 Young people who have been maltreated in childhood are also more likely to have trouble maintaining supportive social networks and are at a higher risk of school failure, gang membership, unemployment, poverty, homelessness, violent crime, incarceration, and becoming single parents.Additionally, if they become parents themselves, they are less likely to be able to provide a stable and supportive environment for their children. This creates an intergenerational cycle of adversity.221
4.56 There may also be physiological disruptions in later life as a consequence of abuse and neglect during childhood. For example, the manifestations of toxic stress can cause alterations to the body's immune system and increases in inflammatory markers which are known to be linked to poor health outcomes.These include cardiovascular disease; viral hepatitis; liver cancer; asthma; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; autoimmune disease; poor dental health; and depression.
The fifth chapter deals with Timely decision-making. This is the first time that the Pro 26 week evidence has been properly set out, and in this context, it becomes more compelling (I remain troubled by what it means for justice – I think Judges should decide on what the right timeframe for decision-making is, based on the case before them)
· One of the most important issues to confront in promoting better outcomes for abused and neglected children is a mismatch between three timeframes: those of the developing child; those of the courts and those of the local authority.
· The birth of a baby is often a catalyst for change. Children who remain with parents who have not made substantial progress in overcoming adverse behaviour patterns and providing a nurturing home within a few months of their birth may continue to experience maltreatment for lengthy periods.
· Social work decisions concerning permanence are made after lengthy and meticulous deliberations. There is a tendency for delays to occur once a temporary solution has been found and the pressure to resolve a crisis has been relaxed.
· The Children Act 1989 embodies the principle enshrined in human rights legislation and policy that children are best brought up by their own families. Identifying the very few children whose parents will not be able to meet their needs within an appropriate timeframe requires professionals to set aside much of the culture of their training and practice.
· On average, care proceedings take a year to complete; data collected between 2008 and 2011 indicate that courts in only eleven local authority areas meet the previous target of 40 weeks.
· Factors that contribute to delays in completing care proceedings include: resource issues; waiting for parenting assessments and the results of attempted placements with parents; resolution of disputes and changes of plan.
· Repeated assessments of birth parents are a major source of delay, as are sequential assessments of different groups of relatives. These are sometimes undertaken in spite of obvious contraindications. There is a stark contrast between the frequency of parenting assessments and the paucity of paediatric assessments to ascertain the impact of abuse and neglect on children's development.
· The more complex the case, the greater the proliferation of expert assessments and the longer the delay.
· Professionals encounter numerous difficulties in trying to retain a focus on the best interests of the child: attempts to ensure that parents' rights and needs are respected can conflict with those of their children.
· Most children placed for adoption are aged two or older before they reach their adoptive families. This timeframe is at odds with research evidence that indicates that babies who are placed early for adoption are most likely to form secure attachments with new carers.
· Delayed decisions mean that children experience the cumulative jeopardy of lengthy exposure to abuse and neglect; disruption of attachments with temporary carers; unstable placements at home or in care; and prolonged uncertainty about their future.
· There is a relatively short window of opportunity in which decisive actions should be taken to ensure that children at risk of future harm are adequately safeguarded. Delays close off those opportunities
This is interesting, gathering some research on when and how interventions work – the importance of gripping neglect cases early and avoiding drift is really apparent from this – the longer the neglect has gone on, the less chance there is on intervention making a difference.
In families where children are abused or neglected, social work interventions can be effective if they are decisive and proactive and if they fit in with children's developmental timescales.230 Actions reinforced by court orders can be more effective than those that are less intrusive, particularly where parents are reluctant to engage with support services or social workers have competing priorities.231 Where parents do not have the capacity to overcome entrenched, adverse behaviour patterns that damage their children's welfare, placement in the care of the local authority is generally more beneficial for children than remaining at home (or returning there),232 and adoption is likely to lead to the best outcomes for very young children.233 A number of intensive, evidence-based interventions have been shown to be effective in other countries and the results of some UK pilots look promising.234
However one of the key messages from this wide body of research is that the longer that children experience abuse and neglect without sufficient action being taken, the less effective are even the most intensive and intrusive interventions in promoting their long-term wellbeing.
5.7 The prospective study of infants suffering significant harm also showed that 93% (13/14) of the parents who were able to overcome adverse behaviour patterns sufficiently to provide a nurturing home did so within the first six months of the birth. Where children remained with birth parents who had not made substantial progress within this timeframe (12 cases), concerns about maltreatment persisted and were still evident at the child's third birthday.
This finding has obvious implications for timescales for decision-making and for intensive interventions. However it is drawn from the experiences of a very small number of children in what is already a relatively small study. It needs testing out with a larger sample
The research is interested in a concept called Cumulative jeopardy, where the child development, already harmed by poor parenting, is compounded by the legal process aimed at protecting them
Conclusion: Cumulative jeopardy
5.26 There is a complex interaction between child development timeframes and delayed actions by local authorities and the courts. Firstly, research on child development and the consequences of abuse shows that the longer children are left inadequately protected from all forms of maltreatment (emotional abuse and neglect, as well as physical and sexual abuse) the greater the chance that their long-term wellbeing will be compromised. Three recent English studies that explored the consequences of professional decision making in neglectful and/or abusive families all found that a high proportion of maltreated children are left in very damaging circumstances with inadequate action being taken to safeguard them, and with adverse consequences for their health and development.
Intensive interventions such as the Family Drug and Alcohol Courtscan make a difference in families, prevent recurrence of abuse and neglect and enable children to remain safely at home. They are also able to show where parents are not able to change within a child's timeframe, so that decisions concerning alternative routes to permanence can be made in a timely fashion. However such interventions are not yet widely available in this country.
5.27 Secondly, a number of studies have shown that, once children are removed from abusive families they often spend lengthy periods in temporary placements before long-term plans are made for their future.Young children can become closely attached to interim carers, only to experience further loss when this attachment is disrupted as they move to a permanent home. Ward, Brown and Maskell Grahamfound that infants who had experienced this double jeopardy (six months or more in an abusive environment followed by a short period of stability and then a disrupted attachment) were showing severe developmental and behavioural difficulties by the time they were three, and that these persisted as they entered formal education. Again, evidence based interventions were not available for these children, and indeed some carers had difficulty in accessing any psychotherapeutic or behavioural support for them.
5.28 The long-term wellbeing of abused and neglected children can be jeopardised in other ways. Frequent changes of placements are one of the most problematic aspects of the current care system in England, as each change can have a negative impact on children's developmental progress, and particularly their capacity to form secure attachments. Studies by Masson and colleagues284 and Ward, Munro and Deardenboth identified a relationship between delayed decisions and placement instability when children are looked after away from home. Masson and colleagues found that 'the longer the case lasted the more likely it was that the child would move':children moved during the proceedings in over 80% of the cases in this study. Ward, Munro and Deardenfound that very young children move at least as frequently as teenagers, and that instability is closely related to the provisional nature of decisions, as children move back and forwards between temporary, short-term foster homes and placements with own parents or new carers while they wait for permanence plans to be made.
5.29 Finally, there is also a relatively short window of opportunity in which decisive actions can be taken to ensure that children are adequately safeguarded. Delays close off these opportunities. If children are to remain at home, proactive engagement with social workers needs to begin early, particularly in view of evidence that case management becomes less active after they reach their sixth birthdays. There is a body of research evidence to show that if abuse and neglect are not adequately addressed at an early stage, as children grow older they may benefit less both from specialist interventions to address its consequences and from separation to prevent its recurrence.Early intervention is also urgently necessary where there are concerns that a child might need to be placed for adoption, for not only do children become increasingly difficult to place as the consequences of long-term exposure to abuse and neglect become more entrenched, but also adoptive carers are harder to find for older children.
5.30 The following timeline, showing best and worst case scenarios related to child development timescales where children remain with their birth parents and where adoption is the conclusion illustrates how these issues intertwine.
[I can't reproduce that timeline, but it is well worth seeing, and probably having a copy at Court for most hearings. It has the potential to be extremely helpful and might actually start making that god-awful phrase "The timetable for the child" have some actual meaning]
Posted in family justice modernisation, research and tagged attachment, cumulative jeopardy, impact of neglect on children, neglect, research, toxic stress. Bookmark the permalink.


text:
George Stubbs (1724 – 1806): A Celebration
George Stubbs (1724-1806): A Celebration, February 14 through May 27, 2007
This winter, The Frick Collection presents the first museum exhibition of paintings by George Stubbs ever to be held in New York City, marking the bicentenary of this British artist widely esteemed for his depictions of animals and scenes of country life in late eighteenth-century England. The Frick is the exclusive North American venue for the show, which opened to acclaim in 2006 at the Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool, the artist's birthplace, before moving in the autumn to Tate Britain, London, the city where Stubbs lived and achieved his greatest success. While Stubbs's work is represented in many American collections, the exhibition at the Frick draws on British-owned examples, many of which have not crossed the Atlantic Ocean in more than twenty years, presenting an important viewing opportunity. The seventeen pictures include almost the full range of Stubbs's subjects, and the exhibition's intimate scale emphasizes his gifts as a painter whose acute powers of observation, gracefully choreographed compositions, brilliant palette, and meticulous technique transform subjects, no matter how mundane or exotic, into timeless statements celebrating the relationship between nature and art. Major local funding for George Stubbs (1724–1806): A Celebration has been provided by The Peter Jay Sharp Foundation. Corporate support has been provided by Fiduciary Trust Company International. Generous funding has also been provided by Francis Finlay, Melvin R. Seiden in honor of Colin B. Bailey, and by the Fellows of The Frick Collection. The exhibition is supported by an indemnity from the Federal Council on the Arts and Humanities.
Colin B. Bailey

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


"We should trust music, maybe even more than we trust ourselves.."
Today we have the pleasure and privilege to talk about music with one of the most perspective young artists - pianist Sofja Gulbadamova.
Born in 1981 in Moscow, Russia she began her studies at the Gnessin Special Music School working with prof. Mikhail Khokhlov. She continued her academic studies at the Musikhochschule Lubeck in the class of the American pianist James Tocco as well as the Paris Conservatory where she has worked with Jacques Rouvier.
She has been performing many solo, chamber and orchestra concerts all around the globe and recent successes include performances at the Great Hall of the St. Petersburg Philharmony, Konzerthaus in Berlin, performances in France, Switzerland, Germany, England, United States of America, Austria, South America, Moldova..
She has won many international prestigious awards among which the Aix-en-Provence Piano Competition, 6th International Poulenc Competition, Grand Prix at the Rosario Marciano International Competition in Vienna, 2nd prize at the "Andre' Dumortier" competition in Belgium.
She has recorded several CD's published by "Passavant Music" recording company as well as the Danish label "Danacord" which was reviewed by the international press, among which the BBC Music Magazine, International Piano and was selected as the Editor's Choice of the November 2013 issue of GRAMOPHONE.
Dino: Sofja, thank you for your time. We were able to make this interview in a very busy and productive period for you - you've just performed an All-Chopin recital in Germany.
Sofja: Thank you for your invitation, Dino.
D: An unavoidable question for our guests at Musical Journeys - Sofja, what is Music?
S: I would like to start with the legacy of D. Schostakovitch: Wisdom. Love. Creation. Death. Immortality. (For Schostakovitch it was the essence of the Sonnets by Michelangelo which he used for his Suite op.145. According to the composers' friend Isaac Glikman, it represents both his credo and his heritage) For me music is my entire life. Like somebody said, music is not what I do - it's what I am. It is the best friend, best support, best remedy, best help, and the most beautiful world to live in. Yes, that's it - Music is my world.
D: Tell us about your beginnings in music, any early influences?
S: Of course, I guess nobody escaped early influences and idols! Mine were (and still are!) Sviatoslav Richter and Vladimir Spivakov. When I would hear Richter's recordings on the radio - without knowing who is playing - I was always able to recognize him. Whenever I heard him performing something, it immediately infected me with the desire to learn it myself each and every time. This way, for instance, Schumann Piano Concerto and Symphonic etudes, or Beethoven Sonata op.10 No.3 became part of my repertoire very early.
Concerning Vladimir Spivakov, I was listening all my childhood to his recording of Tchaikovsky's violin concerto with Seiji Ozawa, among his other recordings. This performance was the main reason why I was dreaming to become a violinist and got a very special connection to that particular instrument. I still remember all of his concerts that I ever attended as a child for they had an amazing impact on me and stayed truly unforgettable.
We actually don't necessarily need to study with someone for being able to regard them as our teachers. Richter and Spivakov certainly were my teachers in this sense.
Other important influences were recordings of Emil Gilels, Leonid Kogan, Evgeni Svetlanov as well as incredibly hypnotizing and inspiring concerts by the young pianist Konstantin Lifshitz who only was a few years older than me and became one of the most remarkable artists of our generation.
D: How important is a good foundation, learning from a good teacher and living in a culturally stimulating environment?
S: In my opinion it is very important indeed. With some very rare exceptions (one of which we could see recently as the phenomenally gifted pianist Lucas Debargue who only plays piano professionally since FOUR years became the sensation of the last Tchaikovsky competition in Moscow) the best results can be obtained by starting very early in a professionally organized system, having a chance to attend good concerts and be in touch with great musical personalities for getting inspiring impulses, in order to understand which way to go. Of course the education should comprise all arts, not music only - great literature, painting, theater, all kinds of important soles that make your heart grow and your soul develop, are essential. Learning from a good teacher is the base for your whole musical life! Both from the technical and musical point of view, a teacher can - and should - give to his pupil / student a kind of a well-equipped instrumental laboratory from which you can always take the tool and wisdom you need. The older we grow, the more it will serve us later on.
D: What are the struggles of young artists today? What does it take to become a professional concert pianist?
S: I guess we all think that our generation has to cope with more difficulties than the previous ones - we will probably never figure out whether this is true or not but what frightens me is the development that comes from the concert organizers who always want to set on a secure horse - which means, the more popular works are on the program, the better it will be sold. But that is an impasse! How should we be able to build up new public and catch their interest if always the same music is played (and this not always on the highest level)?! Our task is also an educational one and I have seen many times how thankful people are when they get a chance to listen to an unconventional program with works or composers they didn't know! So, in my eyes, that is one of the problems especially young artists have to deal with - being forced by managers or concert organizers to play the same things all the time, without any freedom to develop an own personality also in terms of creating programs. Then, another problem which raises partly from the competitions' business is that more technicians than musicians are "en vogue". And if the broad public gets to listen to a new "star" somewhere in a big concert hall, it makes people automatically believe that this very person is the nonplusultra in music. It's a vicious circle - one might loose the ability to hear the difference between a true musician and an artificially made "star" even though this word in its contemporary, glamour-coloured meaning should be kept away from classical music. That's certainly one of the particular problems nowadays.
What it takes to become a professional concert pianist? Oh that's very simple. It takes your whole life.
D: What's your most valuable life lesson learned from music? Can you point to a specific moment in your life connected to music that has a special place in your heart and memories?
S: As everything in my life is connected to music it is quite difficult to point out any specific moment, to be honest. What I learned and continue learning, is that whatever your situation is or whatever hell you are going through, music always gives you the saving power and comfort and stimulates to grow over everything. It will never betray you and never turn away when you need it most. It will always bring you back to life, no matter how desperate you might be at a certain point. We should trust music, maybe even more than we trust ourselves. Music has a greater power upon us than any other intellectual impact.
D: Why music, Sofja? When and how have you decided to become and professional pianist and a musician?
S: There never was a moment of decision. Music has always been a part of my life since earliest childhood, in one way or another, and the Gnessins special music school which I attended since the age of 5, was preparing professionals from the very first step. There was nothing of this "it must be fun" approach that rules in Europe! It starts being fun when one is good enough but in order to become good, one must work hard! So simple is that. So for me the question whether becoming a professional musician or not didn't exist at all. I only realized (after having moved to Germany at age of 15) that music is what I want to be doing all my life and that it is the essence of my being when there was a dilemma how to organize my education. For me it was clear that I want to dedicate myself to piano playing entirely and without any compromise so that's the only turning point that I can recall. Certainly we all doubt from time to time if we are good enough but this is probably very common for artists and naturally belongs to the growing process, if only it doesn't become overdimensional and starts causing psychological problems.
D: How dedicated are you, in your profession? Do you have any routine in your practicing?
S: I probably belong to those who are very dedicated indeed for I love practicing a lot! Routine? I don't know. As long as we passionately love what we are doing, we enjoy every moment of it even though from outside it might look (or rather sound) like routine. But I usually don't get tired of the working process and even when I am physically not touching the piano keyboard, it continues working on its own in my head. So actually this process never stops.
D: What about stage fright? Being a professional pianist means performing live concerts. How do you deal with nervousness and adrenaline?
S: That's a difficult question. Stage fright is something that may accompany you all your life long unless you have iron nerves or possess a yogi secret how to keep calm in every possible situation. What helps a lot is being well prepared. :) But seriously, it's different every single time. Some yoga exercises might bring a little easing. But I also think that one needs this excitement - if one manages to use it positively. Mental training is certainly a great help.
D: How important are recordings? Is it a substitute for a live performance, is it a valid window in time?
S: In my opinion, the most important part of a recording is the fact that one is learning from it, what to do better and how to improve. Besides the fact that for many musicians it is extremely difficult to listen to own recordings, it gives you a unique opportunity to capture the way you feel and approach a work or style, at least at this very moment. Recording is always the best witness of your stand as a musician at a certain instant of your life and is mostly useful from this point of view. As we all develop (at least we should...), it can become annoying, sad, disappointing for the artist himself after a while but it is always a very critical and not always objective feeling. However, imagine how poor our world would be if we hadn't the most stunning recordings by Rachmaninov, Josef Hoffman, Ernst von Dohnányi, Richter, Gilels, Arrau, Kempf, Backhaus, Gieseking, Annie Fischer, Geza Anda, Clara Haskil, Dinu Lipatti and so many others who continue to inspire, astonish and lead us!! So it definitely is a window in time - that is how a CD series with restored piano rolls played by Rachmaninov was called, and it belongs to my absolute favorites ever!It is a very personal question whether a recording can become a substitute to a concert. I think this is not possible. Plus there are not many musicians who would be able to reproduce in a studio atmosphere the same excitement, the spontaneity, the passion and the adrenaline that comes with a live performance. What for me personally can only happen in a concert situation is a piece being created anew at this very moment - only once this way, it is genuine and exceptional and cannot be reproduced... I always miss this special kind of inspiration while studio recordings.
D: What about music competitions? Many pianists seem to take part in these competitions but not many succeed. Do you think they are a valid way to discover new and extraordinary talents?
S: Well, competitions were and are a very debatable subject. Bartók said, "Competitions are for horses, not artists". What is true is that most competitions are being won by those who have the most stable nerves but not necessarily the most interesting artistic personalities. I don't want to offend anyone of course and everybody who takes part and wins should be respected. Just sometimes it becomes so obvious that prizewinning has nothing to do with music and art that one feels really disgusted and asks himself how far this could possibly go..
What is mostly questionable for me is the following point: winning first prizes in competitions (at least at good ones) means a great opportunity for concert performances. So theoretically what the jury should be looking for is an accomplished artist whom it would be interesting to listen to. But the sad reality is that a great deal of the top prizewinners are not that captivating (for me personally) so that I should run to their concerts. That's the big discrepancy for me and I hope that something will change in this point because the way it looks now those who should be heard in concerts don't even get a chance for they are not being awarded top prizes.
D: Sofja, thank you very much for your support, time and interesting answers. I hope our readers will enjoy the conversation as much as I did.
S: Thank you very much, Dino. It was a pleasure to answer your questions. All the best to you!


text:
Rose-Hulman receives national award for program design
With these programs, Rose-Hulman students are inventing new ways to play for children with disabilities.
Posted: Nov 9, 2017 4:16 PM
Updated: Nov 9, 2017 6:34 PM
TERRE HAUTE Ind. (WTHI) - When a child has a disability, learning, and playing can be a challenge.
That's why Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology is being recognized nationally for program design.
Biomedical Engineering students have been working together to modify popular toys.
This will help children with disabilities play games at their own pace.
"I'm doing the work, and it's like when I build it it's going out to people. And I see the reaction. And I see how what I do affects what I'm doing and how it affects other people. It makes you feel good inside," Freshman Elizabeth Lee Fiutem said.
Some of the games include Battleship and Lite Brite.
The games are available for use through the Reach Services Lending Library.
Rose-Hulman celebrates Tree Campus designation
Rose-Hulman hosts career fair
Rose-Hulman hosts STEM Workshop
Award-winning actor talks with Rose-Hulman students
Rose-Hulman Tusk Triathlon supports breast cancer
Rose-Hulman honored as Tree Campus
$25 million project wraps at Rose-Hulman
Rose-Hulman set to host swimming championship