Ancient One
2004-11-13 00:05:58 UTC
Something Charles Pragnell sent us at Unity Injustice, he is fighting
extremely hard for reform and has written an enormous amount of work on this
as has Dr Bill Thompson and Jean Robinson of AIMS
Any questions google down to Unity Injustice
------------------------------------------------
CHILD PROTECTION IN BRITAIN
A NEED FOR ROOT AND BRANCH REFORM
(A Paper presented to an International Conference in Sydney, Australia on
4/5 February 2004 to examine problems in child protection systems and
procedures internationally, and to discuss the need for reforms.)
WHAT I HAVE TO SAY TODAY IS A COMMENTARY ON THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM AS
IT IS IN BRITAIN. I CONFESS TO KNOWING VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE SYSTEM IN
AUSTRALIA BUT I SHALL LEAVE IT TO YOU TO DRAW ANY PARALLELS WHICH YOU MAY
THINK APPLY FROM YOUR OWN EXPERIENCES.
I WOULD FIRSTLY LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BRITISH CHARACTER. IT IS
NOT WIDELY RECOGNISED BUT IN MANY WAYS THE BRITISH CULTURE IS PUNITIVE AND
OPPRESSIVE TOWARD CHILDREN. THE BRITISH WILL ALWAYS STATE THAT THEY LOVE
THEIR CHILDREN AND MOST PROBABLY DO, BUT THEY ARE NOT OPENLY LOVING AND
AFFECTIONATE WITH THEM.
THESE PUNITIVE AND OPPRESSIVE ATTITUDES ARE PARTICULARLY APPARENT IN THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM, IN THE STRONGLY HELD BELIEFS REGARDING CORPORAL
PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN, AND IN THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM. THERE ARE MANY
HUNDREDS OF CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF SIXTEEN WHO ARE BEING HELD IN SECURE
FACILITIES FOR COMMITTING WHAT ARE SEEN AS SERIOUS OFFENCES - BUT THEY
RECEIVE VERY LITTLE IN THE WAY OF THERAPY, COUNSELLING, OR SUPPORT IN
REHABILITATION AND ARE SEPARATED FROM THEIR FAMILIES FOR SEVERAL YEARS. AN
INTERNATIONAL STUDY IN THE EARLY 1980'S AMONG SCHOOLS AROUND THE WORLD FOUND
THAT IT WAS ONLY IN BRITAIN AND ITS FORMER COLONIES THAT CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
WAS STILL USED - MOST EUROPEAN COUNTRIES HAD ABANDONED THE PRACTICE OVER A
CENTURY BEFORE AND SOME HAD NEVER PERMITTED ITS USE.
BUT WHAT THE BRITISH ARE VERY GOOD AT IS IMPORTING AND EXPORTING CHILDREN.
DURING THE INFAMOUS YEARS OF THE SLAVE TRADE, THE BRITISH IMPORTED MANY
SMALL BLACK CHILDREN FROM AFRICA AS FASHION ACCESSORIES FOR THE LADIES OF
BRISTOL AND LIVERPOOL, TO COMPLEMENT THEIR CRINOLINE DRESSES AND PARASOLS.
THEN FROM THE LATE 1800'S, THE BRITISH BEGAN TO EXPORT CHILDREN AND THIS
CONTINUED UNTIL THE LATE 1960'S. CHILDREN WHO WERE BEING LOOKED AFTER IN
LARGE CHILDREN'S HOMES WERE COLLECTED TOGETHER AND TAKEN OFF TO LIVERPOOL
WHERE THEY WERE PUT ON SPECIALLY CHARTERED SHIPS AND TRANSPORTED TO THE NEW
WORLD OF AUSTRALIA AND CANADA, WHERE THEY HAD BEEN TOLD, A WONDERFUL NEW
LIFE WITH GREAT OPPORTUNITIES AWAITED THEM. WE NOW KNOW DIFFERENTLY.
MORE RECENTLY, THE BRITISH HAVE AGAIN BEGUN TO IMPORT CHILDREN. FROM 1970
ONWARDS, THE NUMBERS OF UNWANTED CHILDREN AVAILABLE FOR ADOPTION BEGAN TO
DECLINE VERY RAPIDLY FOLLOWING A RELAXATION IN THE LAWS ON ABORTION AND NEW
DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTRACEPTION. HOWEVER, THE NUMBERS OF CHILDLESS COUPLES
WANTING TO ADOPT CHILDREN CONTINUED TO INCREASE. SO IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE
SUPPLY TO MEET THIS DEMAND, THE BRITISH BEGAN TO IMPORT CHILDREN FROM
EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES WHEN THE SOVIET UNION BEGAN TO BREAK UP IN THE
EARLY 1990'S AND CHILDREN WERE TAKEN FROM THEIR FAMILIES AND THEIR ETHNIC
AND CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS FROM SUCH COUNTRIES AS RUMANIA, BOSNIA, KOSOVO ETC.
THIS WAS LATER EXTENDED TO CHILDREN FROM CHINA AND THE FAR EAST. OF COURSE,
THIS WAS ALL DONE FOR THE BEST OF INTENTIONS AND AS BEING "IN THE BEST
INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN".
BUT THEN, FAR GREATER HARM IS OFTEN DONE BY THOSE WITH GOOD INTENTIONS
TOWARDS OTHERS, THAN IS EVER DONE BY THOSE WITH BAD INTENT.
THERE CAN BE LITTLE DEBATE THAT THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM IN THE U.K. IS
DEEPLY FLAWED, ERRATIC, AND GROSSLY DYSFUNCTIONAL.
IN THE LAST THIRTY YEARS THERE HAVE BEEN OVER 40 INSTANCES WHERE CHILDREN
HAVE DIED WHILE UNDER THE CARE OR SUPERVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION WORKERS.
MANY OF THESE HAVE LED TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT ALMOST
ALL OF THESE INQUIRIES HAVE HAD TWO THINGS IN COMMON IN THEIR FINDINGS.
FIRSTLY THAT THERE WAS A LACK OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE VARIOUS AGENCY
WORKERS INVOLVED AND SECONDLY, THEY HAVE BLAMED `THE SYSTEM' FOR THE ERRORS
WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE RATHER THAN FIND FAULT WITH THE INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS OF
ANY OF THE CHILD PROTECTION WORKERS.
ACCORDINGLY, THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN CHANGED EVERY TIME WITH INCREASED POWERS
AND RESOURCES FOR THE CHILD ABUSE INDUSTRY BUT WHICH HAVE RESULTED IN IT
BECOMING EVEN MORE OPPRESSIVE AND PUNITIVE.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS NOT IN `THE SYSTEM', THE PROBLEM IS IN THE ATTITUDES AND
BELIEFS OF THE WORKERS.
ONE OF THE CLAIMS OF CHILD PROTECTION SOCIAL WORKERS IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF
REPORTED CHILD ABUSE IS ONLY THE TIP OF AN ICEBERG AND THERE IS FAR MORE
ABUSE OF CHILDREN GOING ON THAN IS BEING REPORTED. THEY REGULARLY TRY TO
CREATE A MORAL PANIC AND TO OVERSTATE THE SITUATION IN ORDER TO ATTRACT
PUBLIC AND POLITICAL SYMPATHY AND OF COURSE MORE RESOURCES TO EXPAND THE
CHILD ABUSE INDUSTRY.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THESE ASSERTIONS - IN FACT QUITE THE
OPPOSITE. CHILD ABUSE IS NOT A MAJOR PROBLEM IN BRITAIN OR AT LEAST NOWHERE
NEAR AS LARGE A PROBLEM AS THE CHILD ABUSE INDUSTRY WOULD WANT THE PUBLIC
AND POLITICIANS TO BELIEVE.
ENGLAND AND WALES HAVE A CHILD POPULATION OF APPROXIMATELY 11 MILLION
CHILDREN AND IN 1997 THERE WERE REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE INVOLVING 160,000
CHILDREN BUT OVER 85% OF THOSE REPORTS WERE FOUND TO HAVE "NO SUBSTANTIVE
BASIS". THAT IS, THEY HAD BEEN MADE FOR MISTAKEN, MISCHIEVOUS, MALICIOUS, OR
MONETARY REASONS. HOWEVER THE CHILD ABUSE INDUSTRY PERSUADED THE GOVERNMENT
TO INTRODUCE MANDATORY REPORTING WHEREBY IF A CHILD ARRIVED AT A SCHOOL, A
HOSPITAL, OR A DOCTOR'S SURGERY WITH CUTS AND BRUISES, THIS HAD TO BE
REPORTED TO THE CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES.
CONSEQUENTLY BY 2002 THE FIGURE FOR REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE ROSE TO 570,000.
HOWEVER, FOLLOWING INVESTIGATION OF THESE REPORTS, THE NAMES OF ONLY 11,500
CHILDREN WERE ADDED TO THE CHILD PROTECTION REGISTERS AS BEING `AT RISK' OF
ABUSE, AND IT MUST BE EMPHASISED THAT THESE ARE NOT PROVEN CASES. THESE ARE
DECISIONS THAT CHILDREN ARE AT RISK, AND ARE BASED ONLY ON THE OPINIONS OF
SOCIAL WORKERS AND ON VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE, AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE SOCIAL
WORKERS ARE TERRIFIED TO RISK BEING WRONG.
SO JUST AS SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE FAILED TO INTERVENE WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE
DONE, THEY ALSO HAVE AN APPALLING RECORD OF INTERVENING WHEN THEY SHOULD NOT
HAVE DONE. THE MOST GLARING EXAMPLES OF THIS WERE IN CLEVELAND IN 1987, THE
ORKNEY ISLANDS IN 1990, AND IN NOTTINGHAM AND ROCHDALE AND MANY, MANY OTHER
INSTANCES.
THE EVENTS IN CLEVELAND INVOLVED THE USE OF AN UNPROVEN MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS
TERMED THE ANAL DILATATION TEST WHICH RESULTED IN 121 CHILDREN BEING REMOVED
FROM THEIR FAMILIES - SOME IN MIDNIGHT AND DAWN RAIDS WHEN THE CHILDREN WERE
PULLED FROM THEIR BEDS AND TAKEN AWAY TO RESIDENTIAL AND FOSTER HOMES. THE
SOCIAL WORKERS VIDEO-RECORDED THEIR INTERVIEWS WITH SOME OF THE CHILDREN AND
IT SHOWED THEM ASKING LEADING QUESTIONS, THREATENING THE CHILDREN, AND EVEN
ATTEMPTING TO BRIBE THEM INTO SAYING THEY HAD BEEN ABUSED. AT THE TIME THE
SOCIAL WORKERS HAD A MANTRA OF "ALWAYS BELIEVE THE CHILD" - YET WHEN THE
CHILDREN TOLD THEM THEY HAD NOT BEEN ABUSED, THE SOCIAL WORKERS REFUSED TO
BELIEVE THEM.
THE COURTS HOWEVER, DISMISSED THE CASES INVOLVING 96 OF THE CHILDREN, I.E.
OVER 80% WERE FALSE ACCUSATIONS.
IN ORKNEY, NOTTINGHAM, AND ROCHDALE A THEORY WAS USED OF SATANIC RITUAL
ABUSE AND AFTER THOSE SCANDALS THE GOVERNMENT APPOINTED A RESEARCHER,
PROFESSOR JEAN LA FONTAINE TO UNDERTAKE A STUDY OF SUCH ALLEGED ABUSE. THE
RESEARCH FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE.
AND NOW OF COURSE THERE IS NOW THE MEADOW SCANDAL INVOLVING 5,000 CHILDREN
AND 258 PARENTS WRONGLY CONVICTED ON "MANIFESTLY WRONG AND GROSSLY
MISLEADING EVIDENCE" GIVEN BY MEADOW AND OTHERS.
WHAT THIS SHOWS IS THAT THERE IS A READINESS AMONG SOCIAL WORKERS TO
UNCRITICALLY ACCEPT ANY NEW BUT UNPROVEN THEORY OF CHILD ABUSE AND TO
IMPLEMENT IT IMMEDIATELY INTO THEIR PRACTICE AND WITHOUT A THOUGHT FOR THE
CONSEQUENCES.
THERE IS NOW GROWING ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE FROM MANY PARENTS IN BRITAIN WHO
HAVE CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS THAT THEY ARE BEING TARGETED FOR REFERRAL
TO CHILD PROTECTION PROCEDURES IF THEY APPLY FOR STATUTORY ASSESSMENT FOR
THEIR CHILDREN UNDER THE EDUCATION ACTS. IN PARTICULAR THIS IS AFFECTING
FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN WITH ADD/ ADHD/ ASPERGERS SYNDROME/ HIGH FUNCTIONING
AUTISM/ MODERATE TO SEVERE DYSLEXIA AND DYSPRAXIA/ AND CHRONIC FATIGUE
SYNDROME OR ANY COMBINATIONS OF THESE CONDITIONS. THERE ARE MANY FAMILIES
WHO ARE DAILY REPORTING TO ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE AUTISM SOCIETY THAT,
INSTEAD OF EDUCATION WORKERS CARRYING OUT STATUTORY ASSESSMENTS OF THEIR
CHILDREN, THEY ARE REFERRING THEM INTO THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM.
IN SHORT, SOCIAL WORKERS ARE INTERVENING WHERE THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE AND
ARE NOT INTERVENING WHERE THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE. AS A CONSEQUENCE, MANY
CHILDREN HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES WHILE MANY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHERS
HAVE BEEN AND ARE, CAUSED UNNECESSARY HARM BY UNWARRANTED INTRUSIONS INTO
THEIR LIVES AND THE STIGMA OF CHILD ABUSE ACCUSATIONS WHICH STAY WITH THEM
FOREVER.
I AM NOT OF COURSE THE FIRST PERSON TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THE IDIOSYNCRASIES
AND DYSFUNCTIONS OF THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM.
IN 1990, IN A BOOK TITLED WOUNDED INNOCENTS, RICHARD WEXLER STATED,
"THE WAR AGAINST CHILD ABUSE HAS BECOME A WAR AGAINST CHILDREN. THE CHILD
ABUSE SYSTEM IS HURTING CHILDREN THAT IT IS ATTEMPTING TO HELP".
THIS WAS FURTHER CONFIRMED IN 1995 BY OTHER AMERICAN RESEARCHERS, WAKEFIELD
AND UNDERWAGER, WHO STATED,
"WE HAVE BUILT A SYSTEM THAT, WHILE INTENDED TO PROTECT CHILDREN, OFTEN DOES
MORE HARM THAN GOOD. FROM 1979 TO THE PRESENT EVERY SOCIAL SCIENTIST WHO HAS
INVESTIGATED THE LEVEL AND TYPE OF ERROR COMMITTED BY THE CHILD PROTECTION
SYSTEM HAS CONCLUDED THERE IS AN UNCONSCIONABLE LEVEL OF FALSE POSITIVES,
THAT IS, SAYING THERE IS ABUSE WHEN THERE IS NOT".
HOWEVER THERE ARE MANY CHILD PROTECTION WORKERS WHO WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT
THERE ARE FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF CHILD ABUSE, ONLY THAT THEY CANNOT FIND THE
EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT. AND EVEN THOSE WHO ACCEPT THERE ARE FALSE
ACCUSATIONS, TAKE THE VIEW THAT, AND I QUOTE;
"WHO CARES IF NINE INNOCENTS SUFFER, AS LONG AS WE GET THE GUILTY ONE!.".
AGAIN AMERICAN RESEARCHERS STATE THAT,
"THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM RESPONDS TO ABUSE ALLEGATIONS WITH MUCH
REINFORCEMENT FOR MAKING AN ACCUSATION BUT HAS NO ACCOUNTABILITY. AN
ALLEGATION PRODUCES LARGE AND IMMEDIATE PAY-OFFS AND HAS NO COST TO THE
SYSTEM NOR THE ACCUSER. THIS MAKES THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM VERY
VULNERABLE TO MANIPULATION AND DISTORTION BY TROUBLED AND DISTRESSED PERSONS
PURSUING THEIR OWN PRIVATE PURPOSE."
THERE ALSO SEEMS TO BE LITTLE APPRECIATION OR UNDERSTANDING AMONG SOCIAL
WORKERS OF THE HARM CAUSED TO CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES BY UNNECESSARY AND
UNWARRANTED INTERVENTIONS.
BUT INVESTIGATION OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS SHOW THAT SUCH INVESTIGATIONS CAUSE
IMMENSE HARM TO CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES. AMERICAN RESEARCHERS IN 1995
FOUND THAT,
"ALTHOUGH THE DAMAGE TO A FALSELY ACCUSED PERSON IS OBVIOUS, IT IS NOT FULLY
REALISED THAT A CHILD IS ALSO DAMAGED BY A FALSE ACCUSATION AND A MISTAKEN
DECISION. IF A CHILD IS INVOLVED IN ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE THAT ARE
ILL-FOUNDED AND ERRONEOUS, IT IS NOT AN INNOCUOUS, NEUTRAL, OR BENIGN
EXPERIENCE. A CHILD INVOLVED IN A FALSE ACCUSATION OF ABUSE IS SUBJECTED TO
HIGHLY DESTRUCTIVE EMOTIONAL ABUSE. THE HARM DONE TO CHILDREN WHEN ADULTS
MAKE MISTAKES ... IS SEVERE AND LONG-LASTING."
SO WHAT MISTAKES DO SOCIAL WORKERS MAKE IN THE COURSE OF THEIR
INVESTIGATIONS?.
IN 1991 AND 1995 RESEARCH CARRIED OUT BY TWO ENGLISH RESEARCHERS PROSSER AND
LEWIS SHOWED THAT THERE WERE MAJOR FAULTS IN CHILD PROTECTION INVESTIGATIONS
AND THESE WERE ;
1. THE SOCIAL WORKERS PERCEIVED THAT ABUSE HAD OCCURRED AND THE
ACCUSED AS GUILTY FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE INVESTIGATION;
2. THEREAFTER THE INVESTIGATORS ONLY SOUGHT CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE OF
THEIR ASSUMPTIONS AND DISREGARDED EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD CAST DOUBT ON THE
ALLEGATIONS;
3. THERE WAS POOR RECORDING OF EVIDENCE;
4. INAPPROPRIATE INTERPRETATIONS BY INVESTIGATORS OF STATEMENTS OR
ACTIONS;
5. IDIOSYNCRATIC BEHAVIOUR AND INTERPRETATION OF POLICIES BY
INVESTIGATORS;
6. INVESTIGATORS FOCUSING ON A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND IGNORING
CONTRASTING SETS OF EVIDENCE;
7. CONFUSION OVER WHAT CONSTITUTES A MEDICAL INDICATOR OF ABUSE AND
"NATURAL" CONDITIONS;
8. THE HIGH STATUS OF DOCTORS HAVING SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE OVER OTHER
INVESTIGATORS;
9. EXPERTS DEVIATING FROM THEIR AREAS OF EXPERTISE.
PROSSER AND LEWIS IDENTIFIED THREE AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN I.E.
1. THE IMBALANCE OF POWER WITHIN THE INVESTIGATING AGENCIES;
2. THE ABANDONMENT OF PROFESSIONAL CODES OF CONDUCT AND PRACTICE BY
SOME INVESTIGATORS; AND
3. THE FAILURE OF THE SYSTEM TO ADEQUATELY ACKNOWLEDGE OR COMPENSATE
THE WRONGLY ACCUSED FAMILY FOR THE TRAUMA AND LOSSES SUFFERED.
ON VERY RARE OCCASIONS, SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED TO FAMILIES THAT
THEY GOT IT WRONG OR THAT THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE FAMILY WERE COMPLETELY
FALSE. THESE FAMILIES REPORT HOWEVER THAT THEY NEVER RECEIVED SO MUCH AS AN
APOLOGY NOR RECOGNITION OF THE DEVASTATION CAUSED TO THEIR LIVES AND WERE
TOLD, "JUST FORGET ABOUT IT AND GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE!.".
THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAVE THEIR OWN IDEAS ABOUT CHANGES TO THE CHILD
PROTECTION SYSTEM AND LAST OCTOBER ISSUED A DISCUSSION PAPER (GREEN PAPER)
SETTING OUT THEIR THINKING AND PROPOSALS. IT IS NOT HOWEVER A REFORM OF THE
SYSTEM, BUT MERELY A REORGANISATION AND EXTENSION OF WHAT ALREADY EXISTS.
THE MAJOR PROPOSALS INCLUDE :
1.. MOVING CHILD PROTECTION WORKERS FROM SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENTS INTO
EDUCATION AUTHORITIES I.E. BASING THEM IN SCHOOLS;
2.. CREATING A NATIONAL COMPUTERISED DATABASE OF ALL CHILDREN IN THE
COUNTRY AND THEIR FAMILIES;
3.. EXTENDING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES.
TAKING THE FIRST OF THESE, RE-ORGANISING THE SYSTEM. THE MAJOR FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF MOST, IF NOT ALL, OF THOSE CHILD ABUSE INQUIRIES HAS BEEN
TO `BLAME THE SYSTEM' AND THE SYSTEM HAS ALWAYS RESPONDED WITH "WE HAVE
LEARNED IMPORTANT LESSONS AND WE WILL MAKE APPROPRIATE CHANGES TO OUR
PROCEDURES". HOWEVER THE FACTS SHOWN BY SUBSEQUENT EVENTS ARE THAT THEY HAVE
LEARNT NOTHING AND DESPITE CHANGES TO THE `SYSTEM' THEY CONTINUE TO GET IT
WRONG. IT HAS BEEN PATENTLY OBVIOUS OF COURSE TO ANYONE WITH A CAPABILITY
FOR RATIONAL THOUGHT, THAT IN EVERY ONE OF THOSE OCCASIONS WHERE CHILDREN
HAVE DIED OR FALSE ACCUSATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE, THAT THE PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN
IN THE ATTITUDES, ERRATIC BEHAVIOURS, INCOMPETENCE, AND NEGLIGENCE OF
INDIVIDUAL WORKERS.
THERE IS A SAYING BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR THAT,
"PURSUING STRUCTURAL CHANGE AS A MEANS OF SOLVING ORGANISATIONAL PROBLEMS IS
AS VAIN AS THE SEARCH FOR THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE.. IF YOU CHANGE ATTITUDES,
STRUCTURES WILL LOOK AFTER THEMSELVES, AND IF YOU CAN'T, THEN NO STRUCTURE
WILL DO THE JOB FOR YOU."
ON THE SECOND POINT OF SETTING UP A NATIONAL DATABASE - THIS WILL INCLUDE
THE NAMES AND PERSONAL DETAILS OF OVER 40 MILLION PEOPLE AND WILL BE OPEN TO
COUNTRYWIDE ACCESS BY EVERY SCHOOL, DOCTOR'S SURGERY, POLICE STATION,
HOSPITAL, AS WELL AS STAFF IN THE STATUTORY CHILD PROTECTION AGENCIES WHO
WILL ALL BE ABLE TO ADD INFORMATION SUCH AS INCIDENTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
OFFENDING BEHAVIOURS, DRUG TAKING, ALCOHOLISM, PROSTITUTION ETC WITHOUT
DEFINITIVE PROOF OF SUCH EVENTS AND NO MATTER HOW ACCURATE OR INACCURATE
SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE. FRANKLY I FIND THIS FRIGHTENING FOR OBVIOUS
REASONS. SUCH A DATABASE WILL ALSO BE EXTREMELY VULNERABLE TO PAEDOPHILE
HACKERS AND MISUSE OF THE INFORMATION BY DISGRUNTLED EMPLOYEES.
ALSO OVER MANY YEARS, CHILDREN AND FAMILIES HAVE COMPLAINED THAT DESPITE THE
PROVISIONS OF THE DATA PROTECTION LEGISLATION, THEY FACE ENORMOUS
DIFFICULTIES IN OBTAINING ACCESS TO WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT THEM AND
EVEN MORE DIFFICULT GETTING WRONG INFORMATION ERASED OR AMENDED.
FAMILIES ALSO COMPLAIN THAT EVEN WHEN THEY ARE COMPLETELY EXONERATED,
INFORMATION REMAINS ON THE SYSTEM FOREVER. EVEN IF THE ALLEGATIONS ARE
CLEARLY SHOWN TO BE FALSE, THEY ARE UNABLE TO GET THE RECORDS EXPUNGED AND
IN CONSEQUENCE THEY OFTEN MEET WITH HOSTILITY AND ANIMOSITY IF THEY TAKE
THEIR CHILD TO A DOCTOR, HOSPITAL, OR SCHOOL THEREAFTER BECAUSE THAT
INFORMATION, WITHOUT AN EXONERATING STATEMENT, OFTEN PRECEDES THEM.
THIRDLY REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES. CHILDREN AND FAMILIES REPORT
THAT THEY HAVE UNDERGONE NUMEROUS ASSESSMENTS IN THE HOPE OF RECEIVING
SERVICES BUT AFTERWARDS HAVE REALISED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE IS AN
END IN ITSELF - NOTHING HAPPENS AFTERWARDS BECAUSE AGENCIES DO NOT ALLOCATE
SUFFICIENT RESOURCES TO MEET THE DEMAND FOR THOSE SERVICES. THE QUESTION
MUST BE RAISED AS TO JUST HOW MUCH OF AGENCY RESOURCES ARE GIVEN TO
ASSESSMENT PROCESSES WHICH COULD BE BETTER USED TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES.
IN CHILD PROTECTION PROCEDURES, CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FREQUENTLY COMPLAIN
THAT THE INFORMATION IN SUCH ASSESSMENT REPORTS IS OFTEN INACCURATE,
DISTORTED, EMBELLISHED, AND EVEN FABRICATED.
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO CORRECT THE PRESENT CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM ?.
1.. INQUISITORIAL - CHILD PROTECTION INVESTIGATIONS AND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
SHOULD BE INQUISITORIAL AND NOT ADVERSARIAL. THE PRESENT ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM
IMMEDIATELY THROWS THE PARENTS AND FAMILY INTO AN ACCUSED ROLE AND IN
CONFLICT WITH THE SYSTEM, WHEN ALL PARTIES INVOLVED SHOULD BE WORKING
TOGETHER IN A SPIRIT OF COOPERATION AS FAR AS THIS IS POSSIBLE. PARENTS
OFTEN COMPLAIN THAT HERE RIGHTS IN SUCH PROCEDURES ARE DENIED OR VIOLATED
AND THEY ARE IMMEDIATELY CAST INTO THE ROLE OF CULPRITS WITHOUT AN
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN WHAT HAS OCCURRED AND MATTERS REACH THE COURTS BEFORE
THEY CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES. THE GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES ON CHILD PROTECTION
PLACE GREAT EMPHASIS ON `WORKING TOGETHER' BUT THIS DOES NOT APPARENTLY
INCLUDE WORKING TOGETHER WITH PARENTS AND OTHER CONCERNED FAMILY MEMBERS;
2.. NEW THEORIES OF CHILD ABUSE - WE HAVE SEEN THE HARM CAUSED TO
INNOCENT FAMILIES OVER SEVERAL DECADES BY ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE BASED ON
UNPROVEN THEORIES SUCH AS THE ANAL DILATATION TEST, REPRESSED MEMORY
SYNDROME, SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE AND MUNCHAUSEN SYNDROME BY PROXY. THERE
SHOULD BE AN INDEPENDENT NATIONAL BODY WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO THOROUGHLY
RESEARCH ANY NEW THEORY WHICH MAY BE PROPOSED AND TO VERIFY AND VALIDATE
SUCH THEORIES BEFORE THEY ARE INTRODUCED INTO CHILD PROTECTION PROCESSES;
3.. DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS - IN SITUATIONS WHERE NO SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE
IS FOUND AFTER INVESTIGATION OF AN ALLEGATION OF CHILD ABUSE, THE PARENTS
SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH A DOCUMENTARY STATEMENT STATING THAT THERE IS 'NO
FOUNDATION" TO THE ALLEGATION. THE PARENTS SHOULD THEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO
HAVE ALL RECORDS REGARDING THE EVENT DESTROYED;
4.. IMPROVED TRAINING - THERE NEEDS TO BE AN INTENSIVE FORM OF TRAINING
INTRODUCED TO TRAIN SOCIAL WORKERS IN INVESTIGATORY SKILLS AND IN
PARTICULAR, TO ENSURE THAT CHILD PROTECTION INVESTIGATIONS ARE APPROACHED IN
AN OBJECTIVE, IMPARTIAL, AND EVEN-HANDED MANNER;
5.. FALSE ACCUSATIONS - A CRIMINAL AND CIVIL OFFENCE - IT SHOULD BE MADE
A CRIMINAL OFFENCE TO MAKE A FALSE ACCUSATION OF CHILD ABUSE, AS IT IS IN
IRELAND AND SOME STATES IN AMERICA, AND THERE SHOULD ALSO BE THE RIGHT OF
INDIVIDUALS TO TAKE ACTION IN CIVIL COURTS FOR DAMAGES WHERE SUCH FALSE
ACCUSATIONS HAVE CAUSED THEM HARM;
Charles Pragnell
Charles Pragnell is an independent social care management consultant, a
Child/Family Advocate, and an Expert Defence Witness - Child Protection, and
has given evidence to Courts in cases in England, Scotland, and New Zealand.
Charles has over forty years of experience in working directly with children
and young people as a social worker, a senior manager of social services,
and Director of an independent organization providing services for children
and families. He has undertaken research for the National Children's Bureau
and several local authority Social Services and Education Departments and
for Health Authorities. He has also made presentations at national and
international conferences on child care issues (including child protection)
and social policy issues, and has presented occasional lectures at
Universities in England and Australia.
For over eleven years Charles was an External Examiner to social work
qualifying courses at the Universities of Sunderland, Central Lancashire,
and the John Moore University in Liverpool. He has had numerous articles on
child care and social policy published in journals in the U.K. and South
Africa. He was a member of an international working party of social workers
in child and family services which was set up by the Federation
Internationale de Communite' Educative to produce an international Code of
Ethical Conduct and Practice Principles for social workers worldwide.
Charles has also been a member and a Director of the U.K. Institute of Child
Care and Social Education. He currently lives in Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia.
--
AO
extremely hard for reform and has written an enormous amount of work on this
as has Dr Bill Thompson and Jean Robinson of AIMS
Any questions google down to Unity Injustice
------------------------------------------------
CHILD PROTECTION IN BRITAIN
A NEED FOR ROOT AND BRANCH REFORM
(A Paper presented to an International Conference in Sydney, Australia on
4/5 February 2004 to examine problems in child protection systems and
procedures internationally, and to discuss the need for reforms.)
WHAT I HAVE TO SAY TODAY IS A COMMENTARY ON THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM AS
IT IS IN BRITAIN. I CONFESS TO KNOWING VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE SYSTEM IN
AUSTRALIA BUT I SHALL LEAVE IT TO YOU TO DRAW ANY PARALLELS WHICH YOU MAY
THINK APPLY FROM YOUR OWN EXPERIENCES.
I WOULD FIRSTLY LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BRITISH CHARACTER. IT IS
NOT WIDELY RECOGNISED BUT IN MANY WAYS THE BRITISH CULTURE IS PUNITIVE AND
OPPRESSIVE TOWARD CHILDREN. THE BRITISH WILL ALWAYS STATE THAT THEY LOVE
THEIR CHILDREN AND MOST PROBABLY DO, BUT THEY ARE NOT OPENLY LOVING AND
AFFECTIONATE WITH THEM.
THESE PUNITIVE AND OPPRESSIVE ATTITUDES ARE PARTICULARLY APPARENT IN THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM, IN THE STRONGLY HELD BELIEFS REGARDING CORPORAL
PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN, AND IN THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM. THERE ARE MANY
HUNDREDS OF CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF SIXTEEN WHO ARE BEING HELD IN SECURE
FACILITIES FOR COMMITTING WHAT ARE SEEN AS SERIOUS OFFENCES - BUT THEY
RECEIVE VERY LITTLE IN THE WAY OF THERAPY, COUNSELLING, OR SUPPORT IN
REHABILITATION AND ARE SEPARATED FROM THEIR FAMILIES FOR SEVERAL YEARS. AN
INTERNATIONAL STUDY IN THE EARLY 1980'S AMONG SCHOOLS AROUND THE WORLD FOUND
THAT IT WAS ONLY IN BRITAIN AND ITS FORMER COLONIES THAT CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
WAS STILL USED - MOST EUROPEAN COUNTRIES HAD ABANDONED THE PRACTICE OVER A
CENTURY BEFORE AND SOME HAD NEVER PERMITTED ITS USE.
BUT WHAT THE BRITISH ARE VERY GOOD AT IS IMPORTING AND EXPORTING CHILDREN.
DURING THE INFAMOUS YEARS OF THE SLAVE TRADE, THE BRITISH IMPORTED MANY
SMALL BLACK CHILDREN FROM AFRICA AS FASHION ACCESSORIES FOR THE LADIES OF
BRISTOL AND LIVERPOOL, TO COMPLEMENT THEIR CRINOLINE DRESSES AND PARASOLS.
THEN FROM THE LATE 1800'S, THE BRITISH BEGAN TO EXPORT CHILDREN AND THIS
CONTINUED UNTIL THE LATE 1960'S. CHILDREN WHO WERE BEING LOOKED AFTER IN
LARGE CHILDREN'S HOMES WERE COLLECTED TOGETHER AND TAKEN OFF TO LIVERPOOL
WHERE THEY WERE PUT ON SPECIALLY CHARTERED SHIPS AND TRANSPORTED TO THE NEW
WORLD OF AUSTRALIA AND CANADA, WHERE THEY HAD BEEN TOLD, A WONDERFUL NEW
LIFE WITH GREAT OPPORTUNITIES AWAITED THEM. WE NOW KNOW DIFFERENTLY.
MORE RECENTLY, THE BRITISH HAVE AGAIN BEGUN TO IMPORT CHILDREN. FROM 1970
ONWARDS, THE NUMBERS OF UNWANTED CHILDREN AVAILABLE FOR ADOPTION BEGAN TO
DECLINE VERY RAPIDLY FOLLOWING A RELAXATION IN THE LAWS ON ABORTION AND NEW
DEVELOPMENTS IN CONTRACEPTION. HOWEVER, THE NUMBERS OF CHILDLESS COUPLES
WANTING TO ADOPT CHILDREN CONTINUED TO INCREASE. SO IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE
SUPPLY TO MEET THIS DEMAND, THE BRITISH BEGAN TO IMPORT CHILDREN FROM
EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES WHEN THE SOVIET UNION BEGAN TO BREAK UP IN THE
EARLY 1990'S AND CHILDREN WERE TAKEN FROM THEIR FAMILIES AND THEIR ETHNIC
AND CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS FROM SUCH COUNTRIES AS RUMANIA, BOSNIA, KOSOVO ETC.
THIS WAS LATER EXTENDED TO CHILDREN FROM CHINA AND THE FAR EAST. OF COURSE,
THIS WAS ALL DONE FOR THE BEST OF INTENTIONS AND AS BEING "IN THE BEST
INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN".
BUT THEN, FAR GREATER HARM IS OFTEN DONE BY THOSE WITH GOOD INTENTIONS
TOWARDS OTHERS, THAN IS EVER DONE BY THOSE WITH BAD INTENT.
THERE CAN BE LITTLE DEBATE THAT THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM IN THE U.K. IS
DEEPLY FLAWED, ERRATIC, AND GROSSLY DYSFUNCTIONAL.
IN THE LAST THIRTY YEARS THERE HAVE BEEN OVER 40 INSTANCES WHERE CHILDREN
HAVE DIED WHILE UNDER THE CARE OR SUPERVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION WORKERS.
MANY OF THESE HAVE LED TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT ALMOST
ALL OF THESE INQUIRIES HAVE HAD TWO THINGS IN COMMON IN THEIR FINDINGS.
FIRSTLY THAT THERE WAS A LACK OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE VARIOUS AGENCY
WORKERS INVOLVED AND SECONDLY, THEY HAVE BLAMED `THE SYSTEM' FOR THE ERRORS
WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE RATHER THAN FIND FAULT WITH THE INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS OF
ANY OF THE CHILD PROTECTION WORKERS.
ACCORDINGLY, THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN CHANGED EVERY TIME WITH INCREASED POWERS
AND RESOURCES FOR THE CHILD ABUSE INDUSTRY BUT WHICH HAVE RESULTED IN IT
BECOMING EVEN MORE OPPRESSIVE AND PUNITIVE.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS NOT IN `THE SYSTEM', THE PROBLEM IS IN THE ATTITUDES AND
BELIEFS OF THE WORKERS.
ONE OF THE CLAIMS OF CHILD PROTECTION SOCIAL WORKERS IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF
REPORTED CHILD ABUSE IS ONLY THE TIP OF AN ICEBERG AND THERE IS FAR MORE
ABUSE OF CHILDREN GOING ON THAN IS BEING REPORTED. THEY REGULARLY TRY TO
CREATE A MORAL PANIC AND TO OVERSTATE THE SITUATION IN ORDER TO ATTRACT
PUBLIC AND POLITICAL SYMPATHY AND OF COURSE MORE RESOURCES TO EXPAND THE
CHILD ABUSE INDUSTRY.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THESE ASSERTIONS - IN FACT QUITE THE
OPPOSITE. CHILD ABUSE IS NOT A MAJOR PROBLEM IN BRITAIN OR AT LEAST NOWHERE
NEAR AS LARGE A PROBLEM AS THE CHILD ABUSE INDUSTRY WOULD WANT THE PUBLIC
AND POLITICIANS TO BELIEVE.
ENGLAND AND WALES HAVE A CHILD POPULATION OF APPROXIMATELY 11 MILLION
CHILDREN AND IN 1997 THERE WERE REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE INVOLVING 160,000
CHILDREN BUT OVER 85% OF THOSE REPORTS WERE FOUND TO HAVE "NO SUBSTANTIVE
BASIS". THAT IS, THEY HAD BEEN MADE FOR MISTAKEN, MISCHIEVOUS, MALICIOUS, OR
MONETARY REASONS. HOWEVER THE CHILD ABUSE INDUSTRY PERSUADED THE GOVERNMENT
TO INTRODUCE MANDATORY REPORTING WHEREBY IF A CHILD ARRIVED AT A SCHOOL, A
HOSPITAL, OR A DOCTOR'S SURGERY WITH CUTS AND BRUISES, THIS HAD TO BE
REPORTED TO THE CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES.
CONSEQUENTLY BY 2002 THE FIGURE FOR REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE ROSE TO 570,000.
HOWEVER, FOLLOWING INVESTIGATION OF THESE REPORTS, THE NAMES OF ONLY 11,500
CHILDREN WERE ADDED TO THE CHILD PROTECTION REGISTERS AS BEING `AT RISK' OF
ABUSE, AND IT MUST BE EMPHASISED THAT THESE ARE NOT PROVEN CASES. THESE ARE
DECISIONS THAT CHILDREN ARE AT RISK, AND ARE BASED ONLY ON THE OPINIONS OF
SOCIAL WORKERS AND ON VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE, AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE SOCIAL
WORKERS ARE TERRIFIED TO RISK BEING WRONG.
SO JUST AS SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE FAILED TO INTERVENE WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE
DONE, THEY ALSO HAVE AN APPALLING RECORD OF INTERVENING WHEN THEY SHOULD NOT
HAVE DONE. THE MOST GLARING EXAMPLES OF THIS WERE IN CLEVELAND IN 1987, THE
ORKNEY ISLANDS IN 1990, AND IN NOTTINGHAM AND ROCHDALE AND MANY, MANY OTHER
INSTANCES.
THE EVENTS IN CLEVELAND INVOLVED THE USE OF AN UNPROVEN MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS
TERMED THE ANAL DILATATION TEST WHICH RESULTED IN 121 CHILDREN BEING REMOVED
FROM THEIR FAMILIES - SOME IN MIDNIGHT AND DAWN RAIDS WHEN THE CHILDREN WERE
PULLED FROM THEIR BEDS AND TAKEN AWAY TO RESIDENTIAL AND FOSTER HOMES. THE
SOCIAL WORKERS VIDEO-RECORDED THEIR INTERVIEWS WITH SOME OF THE CHILDREN AND
IT SHOWED THEM ASKING LEADING QUESTIONS, THREATENING THE CHILDREN, AND EVEN
ATTEMPTING TO BRIBE THEM INTO SAYING THEY HAD BEEN ABUSED. AT THE TIME THE
SOCIAL WORKERS HAD A MANTRA OF "ALWAYS BELIEVE THE CHILD" - YET WHEN THE
CHILDREN TOLD THEM THEY HAD NOT BEEN ABUSED, THE SOCIAL WORKERS REFUSED TO
BELIEVE THEM.
THE COURTS HOWEVER, DISMISSED THE CASES INVOLVING 96 OF THE CHILDREN, I.E.
OVER 80% WERE FALSE ACCUSATIONS.
IN ORKNEY, NOTTINGHAM, AND ROCHDALE A THEORY WAS USED OF SATANIC RITUAL
ABUSE AND AFTER THOSE SCANDALS THE GOVERNMENT APPOINTED A RESEARCHER,
PROFESSOR JEAN LA FONTAINE TO UNDERTAKE A STUDY OF SUCH ALLEGED ABUSE. THE
RESEARCH FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE.
AND NOW OF COURSE THERE IS NOW THE MEADOW SCANDAL INVOLVING 5,000 CHILDREN
AND 258 PARENTS WRONGLY CONVICTED ON "MANIFESTLY WRONG AND GROSSLY
MISLEADING EVIDENCE" GIVEN BY MEADOW AND OTHERS.
WHAT THIS SHOWS IS THAT THERE IS A READINESS AMONG SOCIAL WORKERS TO
UNCRITICALLY ACCEPT ANY NEW BUT UNPROVEN THEORY OF CHILD ABUSE AND TO
IMPLEMENT IT IMMEDIATELY INTO THEIR PRACTICE AND WITHOUT A THOUGHT FOR THE
CONSEQUENCES.
THERE IS NOW GROWING ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE FROM MANY PARENTS IN BRITAIN WHO
HAVE CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS THAT THEY ARE BEING TARGETED FOR REFERRAL
TO CHILD PROTECTION PROCEDURES IF THEY APPLY FOR STATUTORY ASSESSMENT FOR
THEIR CHILDREN UNDER THE EDUCATION ACTS. IN PARTICULAR THIS IS AFFECTING
FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN WITH ADD/ ADHD/ ASPERGERS SYNDROME/ HIGH FUNCTIONING
AUTISM/ MODERATE TO SEVERE DYSLEXIA AND DYSPRAXIA/ AND CHRONIC FATIGUE
SYNDROME OR ANY COMBINATIONS OF THESE CONDITIONS. THERE ARE MANY FAMILIES
WHO ARE DAILY REPORTING TO ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE AUTISM SOCIETY THAT,
INSTEAD OF EDUCATION WORKERS CARRYING OUT STATUTORY ASSESSMENTS OF THEIR
CHILDREN, THEY ARE REFERRING THEM INTO THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM.
IN SHORT, SOCIAL WORKERS ARE INTERVENING WHERE THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE AND
ARE NOT INTERVENING WHERE THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE. AS A CONSEQUENCE, MANY
CHILDREN HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES WHILE MANY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHERS
HAVE BEEN AND ARE, CAUSED UNNECESSARY HARM BY UNWARRANTED INTRUSIONS INTO
THEIR LIVES AND THE STIGMA OF CHILD ABUSE ACCUSATIONS WHICH STAY WITH THEM
FOREVER.
I AM NOT OF COURSE THE FIRST PERSON TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THE IDIOSYNCRASIES
AND DYSFUNCTIONS OF THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM.
IN 1990, IN A BOOK TITLED WOUNDED INNOCENTS, RICHARD WEXLER STATED,
"THE WAR AGAINST CHILD ABUSE HAS BECOME A WAR AGAINST CHILDREN. THE CHILD
ABUSE SYSTEM IS HURTING CHILDREN THAT IT IS ATTEMPTING TO HELP".
THIS WAS FURTHER CONFIRMED IN 1995 BY OTHER AMERICAN RESEARCHERS, WAKEFIELD
AND UNDERWAGER, WHO STATED,
"WE HAVE BUILT A SYSTEM THAT, WHILE INTENDED TO PROTECT CHILDREN, OFTEN DOES
MORE HARM THAN GOOD. FROM 1979 TO THE PRESENT EVERY SOCIAL SCIENTIST WHO HAS
INVESTIGATED THE LEVEL AND TYPE OF ERROR COMMITTED BY THE CHILD PROTECTION
SYSTEM HAS CONCLUDED THERE IS AN UNCONSCIONABLE LEVEL OF FALSE POSITIVES,
THAT IS, SAYING THERE IS ABUSE WHEN THERE IS NOT".
HOWEVER THERE ARE MANY CHILD PROTECTION WORKERS WHO WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT
THERE ARE FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF CHILD ABUSE, ONLY THAT THEY CANNOT FIND THE
EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT. AND EVEN THOSE WHO ACCEPT THERE ARE FALSE
ACCUSATIONS, TAKE THE VIEW THAT, AND I QUOTE;
"WHO CARES IF NINE INNOCENTS SUFFER, AS LONG AS WE GET THE GUILTY ONE!.".
AGAIN AMERICAN RESEARCHERS STATE THAT,
"THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM RESPONDS TO ABUSE ALLEGATIONS WITH MUCH
REINFORCEMENT FOR MAKING AN ACCUSATION BUT HAS NO ACCOUNTABILITY. AN
ALLEGATION PRODUCES LARGE AND IMMEDIATE PAY-OFFS AND HAS NO COST TO THE
SYSTEM NOR THE ACCUSER. THIS MAKES THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM VERY
VULNERABLE TO MANIPULATION AND DISTORTION BY TROUBLED AND DISTRESSED PERSONS
PURSUING THEIR OWN PRIVATE PURPOSE."
THERE ALSO SEEMS TO BE LITTLE APPRECIATION OR UNDERSTANDING AMONG SOCIAL
WORKERS OF THE HARM CAUSED TO CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES BY UNNECESSARY AND
UNWARRANTED INTERVENTIONS.
BUT INVESTIGATION OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS SHOW THAT SUCH INVESTIGATIONS CAUSE
IMMENSE HARM TO CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES. AMERICAN RESEARCHERS IN 1995
FOUND THAT,
"ALTHOUGH THE DAMAGE TO A FALSELY ACCUSED PERSON IS OBVIOUS, IT IS NOT FULLY
REALISED THAT A CHILD IS ALSO DAMAGED BY A FALSE ACCUSATION AND A MISTAKEN
DECISION. IF A CHILD IS INVOLVED IN ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE THAT ARE
ILL-FOUNDED AND ERRONEOUS, IT IS NOT AN INNOCUOUS, NEUTRAL, OR BENIGN
EXPERIENCE. A CHILD INVOLVED IN A FALSE ACCUSATION OF ABUSE IS SUBJECTED TO
HIGHLY DESTRUCTIVE EMOTIONAL ABUSE. THE HARM DONE TO CHILDREN WHEN ADULTS
MAKE MISTAKES ... IS SEVERE AND LONG-LASTING."
SO WHAT MISTAKES DO SOCIAL WORKERS MAKE IN THE COURSE OF THEIR
INVESTIGATIONS?.
IN 1991 AND 1995 RESEARCH CARRIED OUT BY TWO ENGLISH RESEARCHERS PROSSER AND
LEWIS SHOWED THAT THERE WERE MAJOR FAULTS IN CHILD PROTECTION INVESTIGATIONS
AND THESE WERE ;
1. THE SOCIAL WORKERS PERCEIVED THAT ABUSE HAD OCCURRED AND THE
ACCUSED AS GUILTY FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE INVESTIGATION;
2. THEREAFTER THE INVESTIGATORS ONLY SOUGHT CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE OF
THEIR ASSUMPTIONS AND DISREGARDED EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD CAST DOUBT ON THE
ALLEGATIONS;
3. THERE WAS POOR RECORDING OF EVIDENCE;
4. INAPPROPRIATE INTERPRETATIONS BY INVESTIGATORS OF STATEMENTS OR
ACTIONS;
5. IDIOSYNCRATIC BEHAVIOUR AND INTERPRETATION OF POLICIES BY
INVESTIGATORS;
6. INVESTIGATORS FOCUSING ON A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND IGNORING
CONTRASTING SETS OF EVIDENCE;
7. CONFUSION OVER WHAT CONSTITUTES A MEDICAL INDICATOR OF ABUSE AND
"NATURAL" CONDITIONS;
8. THE HIGH STATUS OF DOCTORS HAVING SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE OVER OTHER
INVESTIGATORS;
9. EXPERTS DEVIATING FROM THEIR AREAS OF EXPERTISE.
PROSSER AND LEWIS IDENTIFIED THREE AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN I.E.
1. THE IMBALANCE OF POWER WITHIN THE INVESTIGATING AGENCIES;
2. THE ABANDONMENT OF PROFESSIONAL CODES OF CONDUCT AND PRACTICE BY
SOME INVESTIGATORS; AND
3. THE FAILURE OF THE SYSTEM TO ADEQUATELY ACKNOWLEDGE OR COMPENSATE
THE WRONGLY ACCUSED FAMILY FOR THE TRAUMA AND LOSSES SUFFERED.
ON VERY RARE OCCASIONS, SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED TO FAMILIES THAT
THEY GOT IT WRONG OR THAT THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE FAMILY WERE COMPLETELY
FALSE. THESE FAMILIES REPORT HOWEVER THAT THEY NEVER RECEIVED SO MUCH AS AN
APOLOGY NOR RECOGNITION OF THE DEVASTATION CAUSED TO THEIR LIVES AND WERE
TOLD, "JUST FORGET ABOUT IT AND GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE!.".
THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAVE THEIR OWN IDEAS ABOUT CHANGES TO THE CHILD
PROTECTION SYSTEM AND LAST OCTOBER ISSUED A DISCUSSION PAPER (GREEN PAPER)
SETTING OUT THEIR THINKING AND PROPOSALS. IT IS NOT HOWEVER A REFORM OF THE
SYSTEM, BUT MERELY A REORGANISATION AND EXTENSION OF WHAT ALREADY EXISTS.
THE MAJOR PROPOSALS INCLUDE :
1.. MOVING CHILD PROTECTION WORKERS FROM SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENTS INTO
EDUCATION AUTHORITIES I.E. BASING THEM IN SCHOOLS;
2.. CREATING A NATIONAL COMPUTERISED DATABASE OF ALL CHILDREN IN THE
COUNTRY AND THEIR FAMILIES;
3.. EXTENDING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES.
TAKING THE FIRST OF THESE, RE-ORGANISING THE SYSTEM. THE MAJOR FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF MOST, IF NOT ALL, OF THOSE CHILD ABUSE INQUIRIES HAS BEEN
TO `BLAME THE SYSTEM' AND THE SYSTEM HAS ALWAYS RESPONDED WITH "WE HAVE
LEARNED IMPORTANT LESSONS AND WE WILL MAKE APPROPRIATE CHANGES TO OUR
PROCEDURES". HOWEVER THE FACTS SHOWN BY SUBSEQUENT EVENTS ARE THAT THEY HAVE
LEARNT NOTHING AND DESPITE CHANGES TO THE `SYSTEM' THEY CONTINUE TO GET IT
WRONG. IT HAS BEEN PATENTLY OBVIOUS OF COURSE TO ANYONE WITH A CAPABILITY
FOR RATIONAL THOUGHT, THAT IN EVERY ONE OF THOSE OCCASIONS WHERE CHILDREN
HAVE DIED OR FALSE ACCUSATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE, THAT THE PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN
IN THE ATTITUDES, ERRATIC BEHAVIOURS, INCOMPETENCE, AND NEGLIGENCE OF
INDIVIDUAL WORKERS.
THERE IS A SAYING BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR THAT,
"PURSUING STRUCTURAL CHANGE AS A MEANS OF SOLVING ORGANISATIONAL PROBLEMS IS
AS VAIN AS THE SEARCH FOR THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE.. IF YOU CHANGE ATTITUDES,
STRUCTURES WILL LOOK AFTER THEMSELVES, AND IF YOU CAN'T, THEN NO STRUCTURE
WILL DO THE JOB FOR YOU."
ON THE SECOND POINT OF SETTING UP A NATIONAL DATABASE - THIS WILL INCLUDE
THE NAMES AND PERSONAL DETAILS OF OVER 40 MILLION PEOPLE AND WILL BE OPEN TO
COUNTRYWIDE ACCESS BY EVERY SCHOOL, DOCTOR'S SURGERY, POLICE STATION,
HOSPITAL, AS WELL AS STAFF IN THE STATUTORY CHILD PROTECTION AGENCIES WHO
WILL ALL BE ABLE TO ADD INFORMATION SUCH AS INCIDENTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
OFFENDING BEHAVIOURS, DRUG TAKING, ALCOHOLISM, PROSTITUTION ETC WITHOUT
DEFINITIVE PROOF OF SUCH EVENTS AND NO MATTER HOW ACCURATE OR INACCURATE
SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE. FRANKLY I FIND THIS FRIGHTENING FOR OBVIOUS
REASONS. SUCH A DATABASE WILL ALSO BE EXTREMELY VULNERABLE TO PAEDOPHILE
HACKERS AND MISUSE OF THE INFORMATION BY DISGRUNTLED EMPLOYEES.
ALSO OVER MANY YEARS, CHILDREN AND FAMILIES HAVE COMPLAINED THAT DESPITE THE
PROVISIONS OF THE DATA PROTECTION LEGISLATION, THEY FACE ENORMOUS
DIFFICULTIES IN OBTAINING ACCESS TO WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT THEM AND
EVEN MORE DIFFICULT GETTING WRONG INFORMATION ERASED OR AMENDED.
FAMILIES ALSO COMPLAIN THAT EVEN WHEN THEY ARE COMPLETELY EXONERATED,
INFORMATION REMAINS ON THE SYSTEM FOREVER. EVEN IF THE ALLEGATIONS ARE
CLEARLY SHOWN TO BE FALSE, THEY ARE UNABLE TO GET THE RECORDS EXPUNGED AND
IN CONSEQUENCE THEY OFTEN MEET WITH HOSTILITY AND ANIMOSITY IF THEY TAKE
THEIR CHILD TO A DOCTOR, HOSPITAL, OR SCHOOL THEREAFTER BECAUSE THAT
INFORMATION, WITHOUT AN EXONERATING STATEMENT, OFTEN PRECEDES THEM.
THIRDLY REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES. CHILDREN AND FAMILIES REPORT
THAT THEY HAVE UNDERGONE NUMEROUS ASSESSMENTS IN THE HOPE OF RECEIVING
SERVICES BUT AFTERWARDS HAVE REALISED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE IS AN
END IN ITSELF - NOTHING HAPPENS AFTERWARDS BECAUSE AGENCIES DO NOT ALLOCATE
SUFFICIENT RESOURCES TO MEET THE DEMAND FOR THOSE SERVICES. THE QUESTION
MUST BE RAISED AS TO JUST HOW MUCH OF AGENCY RESOURCES ARE GIVEN TO
ASSESSMENT PROCESSES WHICH COULD BE BETTER USED TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES.
IN CHILD PROTECTION PROCEDURES, CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FREQUENTLY COMPLAIN
THAT THE INFORMATION IN SUCH ASSESSMENT REPORTS IS OFTEN INACCURATE,
DISTORTED, EMBELLISHED, AND EVEN FABRICATED.
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO CORRECT THE PRESENT CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM ?.
1.. INQUISITORIAL - CHILD PROTECTION INVESTIGATIONS AND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
SHOULD BE INQUISITORIAL AND NOT ADVERSARIAL. THE PRESENT ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM
IMMEDIATELY THROWS THE PARENTS AND FAMILY INTO AN ACCUSED ROLE AND IN
CONFLICT WITH THE SYSTEM, WHEN ALL PARTIES INVOLVED SHOULD BE WORKING
TOGETHER IN A SPIRIT OF COOPERATION AS FAR AS THIS IS POSSIBLE. PARENTS
OFTEN COMPLAIN THAT HERE RIGHTS IN SUCH PROCEDURES ARE DENIED OR VIOLATED
AND THEY ARE IMMEDIATELY CAST INTO THE ROLE OF CULPRITS WITHOUT AN
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN WHAT HAS OCCURRED AND MATTERS REACH THE COURTS BEFORE
THEY CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES. THE GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES ON CHILD PROTECTION
PLACE GREAT EMPHASIS ON `WORKING TOGETHER' BUT THIS DOES NOT APPARENTLY
INCLUDE WORKING TOGETHER WITH PARENTS AND OTHER CONCERNED FAMILY MEMBERS;
2.. NEW THEORIES OF CHILD ABUSE - WE HAVE SEEN THE HARM CAUSED TO
INNOCENT FAMILIES OVER SEVERAL DECADES BY ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE BASED ON
UNPROVEN THEORIES SUCH AS THE ANAL DILATATION TEST, REPRESSED MEMORY
SYNDROME, SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE AND MUNCHAUSEN SYNDROME BY PROXY. THERE
SHOULD BE AN INDEPENDENT NATIONAL BODY WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO THOROUGHLY
RESEARCH ANY NEW THEORY WHICH MAY BE PROPOSED AND TO VERIFY AND VALIDATE
SUCH THEORIES BEFORE THEY ARE INTRODUCED INTO CHILD PROTECTION PROCESSES;
3.. DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS - IN SITUATIONS WHERE NO SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE
IS FOUND AFTER INVESTIGATION OF AN ALLEGATION OF CHILD ABUSE, THE PARENTS
SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH A DOCUMENTARY STATEMENT STATING THAT THERE IS 'NO
FOUNDATION" TO THE ALLEGATION. THE PARENTS SHOULD THEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO
HAVE ALL RECORDS REGARDING THE EVENT DESTROYED;
4.. IMPROVED TRAINING - THERE NEEDS TO BE AN INTENSIVE FORM OF TRAINING
INTRODUCED TO TRAIN SOCIAL WORKERS IN INVESTIGATORY SKILLS AND IN
PARTICULAR, TO ENSURE THAT CHILD PROTECTION INVESTIGATIONS ARE APPROACHED IN
AN OBJECTIVE, IMPARTIAL, AND EVEN-HANDED MANNER;
5.. FALSE ACCUSATIONS - A CRIMINAL AND CIVIL OFFENCE - IT SHOULD BE MADE
A CRIMINAL OFFENCE TO MAKE A FALSE ACCUSATION OF CHILD ABUSE, AS IT IS IN
IRELAND AND SOME STATES IN AMERICA, AND THERE SHOULD ALSO BE THE RIGHT OF
INDIVIDUALS TO TAKE ACTION IN CIVIL COURTS FOR DAMAGES WHERE SUCH FALSE
ACCUSATIONS HAVE CAUSED THEM HARM;
Charles Pragnell
Charles Pragnell is an independent social care management consultant, a
Child/Family Advocate, and an Expert Defence Witness - Child Protection, and
has given evidence to Courts in cases in England, Scotland, and New Zealand.
Charles has over forty years of experience in working directly with children
and young people as a social worker, a senior manager of social services,
and Director of an independent organization providing services for children
and families. He has undertaken research for the National Children's Bureau
and several local authority Social Services and Education Departments and
for Health Authorities. He has also made presentations at national and
international conferences on child care issues (including child protection)
and social policy issues, and has presented occasional lectures at
Universities in England and Australia.
For over eleven years Charles was an External Examiner to social work
qualifying courses at the Universities of Sunderland, Central Lancashire,
and the John Moore University in Liverpool. He has had numerous articles on
child care and social policy published in journals in the U.K. and South
Africa. He was a member of an international working party of social workers
in child and family services which was set up by the Federation
Internationale de Communite' Educative to produce an international Code of
Ethical Conduct and Practice Principles for social workers worldwide.
Charles has also been a member and a Director of the U.K. Institute of Child
Care and Social Education. He currently lives in Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia.
--
AO