Introduction with wider social policies and social trends (see Parton, 1985, 1991). In this Introduction we offer a brief highlight but Chapters two and three provide a much more thorough engagement with past, present and, indeed if we continue on our present trajectory, future dangers and possibilities. The modern child protection system emerged in the 1960s rooted in a concern to stop babies dying or being ‘battered’ by parents, who were considered to be suffering from a lack of empathic mothering in their own lives. Poverty, bad housing and other social factors
( Scott, 2006 ). The focus on diagnosis and treatment associated with Kempe’s work has arguably set the enduring template for a forensic approach to the investigation and assessment of suspected child abuse: The modern child protection system emerged from a concern to stop babies dying or being ‘battered’ by parents who were considered to be suffering from a lack of empathic mothering in their own lives. Poverty, bad housing and so on were screened out as holding helpful explanatory value (Parton, 1985). ... Despite all the changes, the story honed in the 1960s has
these are key social determinants of good enough childhoods. How have we got here? The modern child protection system emerged from a concern to stop babies dying or being ‘battered’ by parents who were considered to be suffering from a lack of empathic mothering in their own lives. Poverty, poor housing and other social issues were screened out as holding helpful explanatory value (Parton 1985). From those early beginnings, rooted in concern for those who were powerless and voiceless and compassion for their emotionally deprived parents, the system has
possibilities. We begin by tracing the evolution of the child protection story through the ‘rediscovery’ of child abuse in the 1960s, highlighting its relentlessly individualising gaze and its eschewal of the need to anchor parents’ actions/inactions to social and economic contexts. A relentlessly individualising gaze The ‘modern’ child protection system emerged in the 1960s from a concern to stop babies dying or being ‘battered’ by parents, who were considered to be suffering from a lack of ‘empathic mothering’ in their own lives ( Featherstone et al, 2018 ). Poverty
problem of child abuse emerged in the 1960s on to the policy and practice agendas. He notes that the 19th-century child- saving era lasted until the First World War, when child abuse disappeared until it was ‘discovered’ by Henry Kempe, a paediatrician, and his colleagues in Denver (Kempe and Helfer, 1980). This was an expert-led process, led by doctors in hospital, far removed from communities where families sought to raise children. It was argued that the basic ingredients of parental behaviour arose predominantly from parents’ own lack of empathic mothering
’ but less credible as ‘competent’ leaders. Thus, women have a different ‘pact’ with the public – any display of compassion carries with it the risk of creating associations with the private sphere of domesticity and emotional expressivity with which women have traditionally been associated ( Evans, 2009 ). The gendered tensions of emotional display can be found in the coverage of prominent women leaders such as Angela Merkel with reference to her image as ‘Mutti’, the empathic mother of the German nation. As with Clinton, and May, media coverage of her suggests an
was considered of marginal importance when it came to the care of his children but his role as economic provider was vital. Unmarried mothers and fathers were considered ‘abnormal’ and victims. Neglect and delinquency were the central issues to be tackled. However, in the 1960s, researchers drew attention to the ‘battered baby syndrome’ whose aetiology was considered to lie in the lack of ‘empathic mothering’ in parents’ childhoods (see Featherstone, 1996). This research was to be pivotal in establishing awareness of ‘child abuse’ and placed medical
Social work is under unprecedented pressure as a result of funding cuts, political interventions, marketisation and welfare transformations which, combined, are dramatically reshaping the relationship between individuals and the welfare state.
A wide range of distinguished academics provide a comprehensive analysis of the evolving challenges facing contemporary social work, reflecting on both the existential and ideological threats to the profession. As well as the chief practice areas of child protection, adult care and mental health, contributors also examine practice issues surrounding older people, neoliberalism, neo-eugenics and the refugee crisis.
This book offers concrete policy proposals for the future of the profession alongside valuable solutions which students and practitioners can action on the ground.
Exploring the current and historical tensions between liberal capitalism and indigenous models of family life, Ian Kelvin Hyslop argues for a new model of child protection in Aotearoa New Zealand and other parts of the Anglophone world.
He puts forward the case that child safety can only be sustainably advanced by policy initiatives which promote social and economic equality and from practice which takes meaningful account of the complex relationship between economic circumstances and the lived realities of service users.
The state is increasingly experienced as both intrusive and neglectful, particularly by those living in poverty, leading to loss of trust and widespread feelings of alienation and disconnection.
Against this tense background, this innovative book argues that child protection policies and practices have become part of the problem, rather than ensuring children’s well-being and safety.
Building on the ideas in the best-selling Re-imagining child protection and drawing together a wide range of social theorists and disciplines, the book:
• Challenges existing notions of child protection, revealing their limits;
• Ensures that the harms children and families experience are explored in a way that acknowledges the social and economic contexts in which they live;
• Explains how the protective capacities within families and communities can be mobilised and practices of co-production adopted;
• Places ethics and human rights at the centre of everyday conversations and practices.
