Cumulative jeopardy? A response to Brown and Ward

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In recent years, the political context of children's social care in England has shifted from doubts about the efficacy of out-of-home care to the view that more children should be separated from their birth parents, earlier and more speedily. Brown and Ward's (2014) article 'Cumulative jeopardy' reflects this transition, making the case that there is a 'gross mismatch between timeframes for early childhood development and professional responses to evidence of abuse and neglect in the early years' (p. 6). This analysis of the research on which their argument is based, 'Infants suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm', raises questions about whether the evidence presented adequately supports the conclusions drawn. Four aspects of the study are addressed: methodological, empirical, conceptual and ethical. It is argued that it is premature to reach a judgement about the balance of evidence for more widespread and early separation of infants from birth parents on the basis of the study.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)68-73
Number of pages6
JournalChildren and Youth Services Review
Volume52
Early online date11 Mar 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Parents
Parturition
infant
parents
Home Care Services
Child Care
England
evidence
mismatch
home care
neglect
abuse
childhood
Research

Cite this

@article{eced492fad684421a971728a92e7a958,
title = "Cumulative jeopardy? A response to Brown and Ward",
abstract = "In recent years, the political context of children's social care in England has shifted from doubts about the efficacy of out-of-home care to the view that more children should be separated from their birth parents, earlier and more speedily. Brown and Ward's (2014) article 'Cumulative jeopardy' reflects this transition, making the case that there is a 'gross mismatch between timeframes for early childhood development and professional responses to evidence of abuse and neglect in the early years' (p. 6). This analysis of the research on which their argument is based, 'Infants suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm', raises questions about whether the evidence presented adequately supports the conclusions drawn. Four aspects of the study are addressed: methodological, empirical, conceptual and ethical. It is argued that it is premature to reach a judgement about the balance of evidence for more widespread and early separation of infants from birth parents on the basis of the study.",
keywords = "Child protection, Children's rights, Decision making, Family support, Very young children",
author = "Paul Bywaters",
year = "2015",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.03.001",
language = "English",
volume = "52",
pages = "68--73",
journal = "Children and Youth Services Review",
issn = "0190-7409",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

Cumulative jeopardy? A response to Brown and Ward. / Bywaters, Paul.

In: Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 52, 01.05.2015, p. 68-73.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cumulative jeopardy? A response to Brown and Ward

AU - Bywaters, Paul

PY - 2015/5/1

Y1 - 2015/5/1

N2 - In recent years, the political context of children's social care in England has shifted from doubts about the efficacy of out-of-home care to the view that more children should be separated from their birth parents, earlier and more speedily. Brown and Ward's (2014) article 'Cumulative jeopardy' reflects this transition, making the case that there is a 'gross mismatch between timeframes for early childhood development and professional responses to evidence of abuse and neglect in the early years' (p. 6). This analysis of the research on which their argument is based, 'Infants suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm', raises questions about whether the evidence presented adequately supports the conclusions drawn. Four aspects of the study are addressed: methodological, empirical, conceptual and ethical. It is argued that it is premature to reach a judgement about the balance of evidence for more widespread and early separation of infants from birth parents on the basis of the study.

AB - In recent years, the political context of children's social care in England has shifted from doubts about the efficacy of out-of-home care to the view that more children should be separated from their birth parents, earlier and more speedily. Brown and Ward's (2014) article 'Cumulative jeopardy' reflects this transition, making the case that there is a 'gross mismatch between timeframes for early childhood development and professional responses to evidence of abuse and neglect in the early years' (p. 6). This analysis of the research on which their argument is based, 'Infants suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm', raises questions about whether the evidence presented adequately supports the conclusions drawn. Four aspects of the study are addressed: methodological, empirical, conceptual and ethical. It is argued that it is premature to reach a judgement about the balance of evidence for more widespread and early separation of infants from birth parents on the basis of the study.

KW - Child protection

KW - Children's rights

KW - Decision making

KW - Family support

KW - Very young children

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84924942789&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.03.001

DO - 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.03.001

M3 - Article

VL - 52

SP - 68

EP - 73

JO - Children and Youth Services Review

JF - Children and Youth Services Review

SN - 0190-7409

ER -