Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Child Protection and Contexts of Recognition

2020; Wiley; Volume: 29; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/car.2616

1099-0852

Carlene Firmin,

Intimate Partner and Family Violence

The papers in this edition of Child Abuse Review cover a broad range of topics relevant to the protection of children and the prevention of abuse. From child safety in sporting contexts, the identification of children with early adverse experiences, and supporting young children within foster care settings; through to routes for disclosing child sexual abuse (CSA) and the educational experiences of young people living in domestic abuse refuges – the papers selected cover a diverse ground. Yet collectively they tell a shared story about the contexts of child abuse – and importantly the contexts in which child abuse can be recognised, and thereby prevented or disrupted. ‘Collectively they tell a shared story about… the contexts in which child abuse can be recognised’ Our first paper, by Emma Brennan and Rosaleen McElvaney (2020) from Dublin City University, Ireland, reports the results of a meta-analysis of qualitative studies into CSA disclosure conducted from 1998 until 2018 to provide insights into what enables disclosure. Through a process of thematic analysis, six facilitators of disclosure emerge which the authors organise into two categories: dynamics that result in children ‘needing to tell’; and those where children have an ‘opportunity’ to tell. Both categories are characterised by ‘context’, and through their examination the authors build on arguments previously made for disclosure to be conceptualised as a relational and ecological process, situated in an interaction between individuals and situations (Alaggia, 2010). Rather than describe the children who are able to tell, or find themselves needing to do so, the studies under examination foreground the situations in which disclosure feels possible or necessary. Trusted and trusting relationships are deemed central, with peers most commonly identified as recipients of disclosures. Moreover, the authors found that relationships that help children recognise their experiences as abusive, and in which they have the confidence that they will be believed and be supported, are the ones that create contexts in which disclosures can, and do, occur. Such a narrative is critical for situating drivers of disclosure outside, as well as within, children who have been sexually abused. Rather than label a child as someone who was unable to speak out, or who did not understand their experiences as abusive, the evidence base looks to the contexts and relationships that enable children to understand their experiences and to be heard. ‘The evidence base looks to the contexts and relationships that enable children to understand their experiences and to be heard’ In making recommendations for policy and practice, the authors stress that the quality of relationships appear most important at facilitating disclosures, rather than an individual having the correct set of ‘skills’ to receive a disclosure. They reflect that such a focus might mitigate the risks of adults avoiding conversations about sexual abuse for fear of making a mistake, given that ‘avoidance of such topics may lead children to believe that these adults are not to be trusted with such difficult and sensitive information’ (Brennan and McElvaney, 2020, p. 110). Contexts in which children trust others are the ones in which disclosures, and therefore protection, become possible. The importance of creating spaces in which children's voices can be heard and valued is equally evident in our second paper, which explores safeguarding in sport. In this paper, Suzanne Everley (2020) from the University of Chichester analyses 34 responses to a survey of national governing bodies of sport in which they were asked how they provide information, and listen, to children – and the value and challenges that come with these processes of communication. Through a lens of Foucauldian theory, the author notes how power relationships between sports coaches, parents and carers, and children, as well as the wider sporting industry, create both material and relational features that can silence children. In contexts where children are not heard, avenues to abuse them are created. As such she argues that understanding the sector's capacity to listen to children provides an insight into its capacity to protect children. ‘In contexts where children are not heard, avenues to abuse them are created’ Analysis of survey responses surfaced practical and cultural challenges to creating ‘listening’ sporting contexts. From a practical perspective, not all respondents had created opportunities through which children could express their views – and some routes to achieving this were largely controlled by adults or restricted in other ways. From a cultural perspective, however, the author noted that there was more to do to create power relationships in which children's voices were valued to the extent that they informed and, where possible, led decision-making. Survey responses also surfaced exemplars through which these practical and cultural challenges had been overcome. From using remote techniques of engagement, such as surveying children, through to creating opportunities for interaction around topics where children had expressed an interest, some national governing bodies could identify both the mechanisms they were using to listen to children and the value that this brought to their sector. The extent to which these mechanisms were controlled by adults, or where attempts had been made to put children in the lead, varied. Respondents appeared to recognise the value of children's voices, and the importance of hearing those voices as a route to protection; they were limited in the extent to which the cultures of their organisations created power structures for this value to be realised. Like Brennan and McElvaney's (2020) article on disclosure, the survey data in this paper suggest that contexts which value the views of young people cannot be created through guidance or process alone. Organisational cultures need to promote young people's participation and demonstrate this in their decision-making processes: should this be achieved, Everley (2020, p. 126) argues that ‘the environment for children becomes more secure and practitioners benefit from the reflection that this provides them with’. In doing so, the author situates safety in the contexts with which children interact, rather than in children themselves. Comparatively, the third article positions young people's voices as central to their account of teenager's (the term preferred by participants to denote their age) experiences of education while they are in domestic abuse refuges: four teenagers were involved in the design of the study, three played a role in the process of analysis, and Kelly Bracewell and colleagues (2020) from the University of Lancashire prioritise data from interviews with 20 young people (alongside interviews with 25 professionals across 20 refuges) in reporting their findings. Situating resilience, development and protection as ecological (Ungar et al., 2013), the authors explore the contexts of both schools and refuges as facilitating young people's engagement in education. Young people who participated in the study reported numerous factors associated with schooling and education that undermined their opportunities and development while they were living in refuges; and further to this, that many of these issues occurred within an interaction (or lack thereof) between local authorities, refuges and schools. Peer relationships emerge as significant for young people but are undervalued by professionals. The loss of safe and supportive friendships when having to move into a refuge, the struggle to make friends in new schools while living in a refuge, and the isolation experienced when unable to access education upon moving into a refuge were all cited by young people as negatively impacting their welfare. For them, the quality of family relationships, in particular their relationship with their mothers, was of central consideration during this time, but friendship was rarely given as much, if any, attention. ‘Peer relationships emerge as significant for young people but are undervalued by professionals’ Further to this, young people identified aspects of both refuges and schools that compromised their sense of belonging, safety and overall wellbeing, in relation to their education. Not having spaces within refuges to undertake homework, or to be supported in this endeavour, was noted as problematic by many participants. Young people also noted the absence or presence of trusted adults within school environments, and the quality of the provision they were provided, as impacting their welfare and ability to engage in education during this turbulent time. Schools, like the sporting clubs referenced in the previous article, have a potential to offer a community space in which young people can positively engage with protective adults and rebuild social networks with peers and their wider community. For the authors, these social factors of resilience and protection were often absent for the young people featured in their study. The social nature of resilience and protection is also explored in the final paper of this edition, in which Joht Singh Chandan, from the University of Birmingham, and colleagues (2020) offer a critical reflection on the use of data on ‘Adverse Childhood Experiences’ (ACEs) by one UK police force. The participating police force had piloted the use of data on the ten ACEs, identified by Felitti et al. (1998), to identify and offer early intervention to those found to have been through such experiences. Using data from three focus groups with 35 neighbourhood police officers (NPOs) who participated in the pilot scheme, and a supplementary 20 questionnaires, the authors identify limitations in the approach by virtue of the nature of the data and the processes by which it was used. Participants in the study reported the value of the approach in broadening their lens beyond the individuals they encountered in their jobs; they saw the broader context of young people's lives and had the opportunity to engage with them on these grounds. The extent to which this opportunity was realised during the pilot study is questioned by the authors who, drawing upon reflections from participants, identify how this particular use of ‘ACEs’ ultimately narrows the lens through which vulnerability is viewed, and often too late. ‘This particular use of ‘ACEs’ ultimately narrows the lens through which vulnerability is viewed, and often too late’ Policing data alone were used in the pilot, creating numerous limitations. Data on young people's experiences of ‘ACEs’ that was held by other agencies were not drawn upon. Other forms of adversity experienced by young people that were not counted as one of the ‘10 ACEs’ were excluded from the pilot. And ACEs were only being counted at the point at which they had come to police attention – arguably too late. Further to this, neighbourhood officers knew of young people who had experienced fewer than four ACEs who were in need of early help. Conversely some young people were arguably profiled prematurely – with repeated experiences of the same adverse experience being totalled until they reached four and triggered an intervention – rather than experiences of four distinct forms of adversity being required as they were in the original ACE studies (Felitti et al., 1998). In conclusion, the authors note the numerous challenges of decontextualised approaches to understanding adversity that emerged during the pilot. Applying population-wide counts to individual experiences, excluding broader community-based relationships in which early help has been offered to young people, and positioning criminal justice agencies as a source of preventative action are just some of the difficulties raised. The project had sought to create contexts in which the police could recognise adversity in the lives of young people – and respond. Instead it appeared to create contexts in which the social and community dynamics of adversity and protection had been overlooked – and individualised rather than contextualised routes to identification. Building safety in relationships, rather than individuals, is also a narrative that emerges in the Continuing Professional Development contribution to this issue. Here, Daire Gilmartin and Rosaleen McElvaney (2020) from Dublin City University, Ireland, explain the history, evidence base and implications of Filial Therapy as a route to creating safety, stability and security in relationships between foster parents and those in their care. Outlining the four features of the approach, the authors note how it is one that removes a focus on ‘fixing’ a child in order to stabilise relationships in foster care, and instead focuses on the relationship between the child and the carer: the relationship, and not the child, is the target of the programme and through improvements in this relationship, safety can be achieved for the child. The authors explain how the use of non-directive play throughout the therapy provides a space for children to have choices and provides carers with an insight into children's worlds and worldviews. Further to this, through play, carers are provided an opportunity to interact with a child's world – offering a pathway to empathy. Providing space for children to create contexts for play allows carers the space to step into those contexts and, over time, allows for the relationships and interactions that are built through play to inform the broader context of the home environment. ‘Through play, carers are provided an opportunity to interact with a child's world – offering a pathway to empathy’ The book reviewed for this issue offers practitioners, rather than carers, an opportunity to step into contexts and develop their practice through case study interaction. The book Thinking About Child Protection Practice by Leigh and Laing (2018) uses a reflective case study approach across seven chapters to allow practitioners to ‘act out’ – and therefore interact with – scenarios, rather than solely read about them. In reviewing the book, Jackie Hucker (2020) notes potential bias and limited analysis in some areas of the text, while also reflecting that, although it was intended for social workers, the book could support reflective practice across a broad church of professionals: an important point given the diversity of contexts featured in this issue of Child Abuse Review. This edition paints a cumulative picture of the contexts in which the abuse of children can be recognised; a picture in which three features loom large. Whether through play, opportunities for disclosure, the co-design of research, processes to influence policy or through relationships with those they trust, creating contexts in which children are heard is essential to their protection and wellbeing. Fashioning such contexts is no mean feat: it requires a move beyond decontextualised datasets, processes and guidance documents, and towards creating cultures in which children's voices are heard and valued. To create contexts of recognition, these papers suggest that we need to value the myriad of relationships and social settings in which protection can be afforded. Peer relationships and the value they hold for young people's development and wellbeing is of particular note, calling us to move beyond solely viewing relationships within families or with professionals as being sufficient for safeguarding the welfare of young people who have experienced abuse. ‘We need to value the myriad of relationships and social settings in which protection can be afforded’ Contexts intersect – homes, schools, community settings, streets, sports' clubs and so on – they impact upon each other, and the extent to which children can be heard, and protected in any. Whether it is the relationship between schools and refuges, sports clubs, associations and parents, the police and community groups, or carers and therapists, they all have the potential to interact in ways that foster contexts in which children are seen or silenced. As Brennan and McElvaney (2020, p. 111) note in their concluding remarks, children are ‘entitled to have adults who respond to them in noticing when they are distressed, asking them about their wellbeing, taking them seriously, and taking action to protect them from further harm’; it is relationships and cultures, rather than individualised datasets and depersonalised guidance documents, which will create the contexts where this is possible.