Child protection in the Western World - poles apart?

Child welfare in the UK has a sad history of reacting to extreme acts of cruelty, committed by parents and guardians, whilst the child was under the jurisdiction of the local authority.  This catalogue of deaths and the subsequent inquiries and legislation has shaped children's services.  Its critics argue that public opinion, coupled with political point scoring has resulted in legislation that is both ineffective and invasive.  Death in care is as old as Personal Social Services.  It's first unfortunate victim; Dennis O'Neil was killed by his foster parents in 1945, resulting in the 1948 Children Act.  This act created the role of a Children's Officer within the local authority.  This created a civil servant who had responsibility for children's welfare within each local area.  Maria Cowell, who died in 1974 at the hands of her stepfather was also known to social services, highlighting another appalling case of the abuse of a child, whilst that child had involvement with the local authority.  The reaction in this case, was to co-ordinate services so that one department dealing with a case of suspected child abuse was forced to involve other departments.  Then, after a depressing long list of children who quietly died at the hands of their carers, another high profile court case led to legislation.  In 2000, Victoria Climbie' was murdered by her great aunt and her boyfriend.  The full extent of the little girls suffering at the hands of her sadistic guardians, who were known to Social Services, the police, the NHS and education workers was reported to an outraged public.  The Lamming Report of 2003 focused on the accountability of all departments concerned, (not just in social work) and once again provision was altered, this time towards a multi-agency approach.  Most recently reported is the Baby P case in which a toddler was systematically brutalised by parents and their lodger, until his death in 2007.  During his short life, Baby P was flagged up time and again as a child at serious risk of harm.  In the 17 months before his death, this child had 60 visits from child welfare professionals, presenting at A & E with a fractured spine, which was 'overlooked' by the examining doctor.  60 years of child welfare and tinkering with its services had resulted in a case of child abuse so appalling that it stunned even the most hardened reporters, never mind the general public.  Richard Edwards, reporting in the Telegraph in 2008, claimed that one child under the age of 10 was killed every week and the number of children victims of murder or manslaughter in the UK had risen by 30 %, with 49 children dying in a single year.  Social intervention, it would appear, has not worked in the case of the most vulnerable of children.

Multi media reporting is a double edged sword. Maximising coverage during the period that a child goes missing, for example, is of paramount importance when the police are looking for sightings and require the public's assistance. Also, professional malpractice concerning child protection and general safety, should be extensively covered by the media in order to change practice and enable parents to make informed choices with regard to bringing up their children. The media however, have other motives for covering stories concerning the well-being and safety of children. Motives that can create unsavoury 'feeding frenzies' during the hight of court cases and the personal family tragedies that take place from time to time. Because ratings and readership statistics are given a huge boost during the hight of 'stories' of child abuse or child abduction. Make no mistake, misery sells. The more lurid the story, the more 'the public' lap it up. Which goes some way to explain the outrageous story lines and threads that emerged over the case of Madeline MacCan, as the case went cold. (I saw one of her posters the other day in Guarec. It made my blood run cold, she's been gone so long and yet they are still looking all over Europe.) Those families who sell their story, with exclusive rights to one part of the media, set themselves up for an onslaught of negative reporting from those left out of the loop. As if loosing a child wasn't enough.

Abuse and neglect of children is as old as time itself. What ever the definition of parenting is in vogue, there has always been some who have treated children and other vulnerable people with unusual cruelty.  The setting up of local authorities in the 40's merely contributed to public knowledge of specific instances.  However, as long ago as the 17th century, lurid stories of abandoned children, left to fend for themselves at a tender age, abounded.  Some forensic evidence for child murder during this period, turns up from time to time.  (See http://www.smithsonionmag.com/arts-culture/Bone-Cop.html)

Litigation has a lot to answer for, when it comes to children and physical activity. Not that long ago, childhood was full of physical risk. Tree houses more than 10 foot up a tree, adventure play grounds made of splintered, scratchy wood and 6 inch nails, pogo sticks, bicycles, conkers, marbles, sharp sticks, the list was endless. Now, if a child breaks their arm playing French skipping, someone is sued. Organised activities for children are becoming so banal that it is no wonder that young people are reluctant to engage with 'wholesome' organisations. It is almost as if a claim/blame culture would have as wrap all children in bubble wrap and incarcerate them in 'safe' environments. This has lead to generations who are unable to experience risk and become comfortable with risk assessment and the consequences of ill judged decisions.Then of course, public anxiety is increased as childhood obesity soars. It would seem that our need to protect our children from external harm has meant that they have become couch potatoes with a shortened life span. We may be literally loving our children to death.

The behaviour of young children is a hot topic of conversation, not least with older generations who when bringing up their own offspring, frequently resorted corporal punishment to keep them in check.  In fact, when I grew up in the 60's, the whole of the adult community seemed compelled to whack you round the back of the head, if you so much as looked at them the wrong way.  The subject of discipline is a thorny one.  On the one hand, you have children behaving like despotic psychopaths, screaming and attacking their parents, (and I'm not referring to toddlers here.)  On the other hand, you have parents desperately trying to ignore the filthy looks directed at them from onlookers, whilst they deal with an out of control child without resorting to violence.  The behaviour of English children is particularly noticeable when you live in another country.  When I'm out and about and I hear a child being loud and obnoxious, it is invariably English.  The first time I went shopping in a French supermarket, I thought I'd gone deaf because it was so quiet.  No shouting, no screaming, no running up and down the isles and rummaging through the fresh produce.  Challenging behaviour is all too common amongst our offspring and parents receive mixed messages from those in authority. Smacking is unacceptable so parents have to work at parenting.  This can be all too difficult, especially since when you become a parent as the child does not come with a set of instructions. You don't have to pass an exam before having a child.  In a world where relationships are so transitory that a sofa company actually advertises that it's sofas' will last longer than the average marriage, it is hardly surprising that parents find bringing up their designer clad offspring a tad difficult.  You cannot divorce your child, however much you would like to.  Instead, a parent has to become a child psychologist, life coach and personal servant to their little darling for the 20 or so years it takes before the apple of their eye becomes self sufficient.

If childhood is a social construct, then what is it now?