Cumulative jeopardy? A response to Brown and Ward

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    5 Citations (Scopus)
    70 Downloads (Pure)

    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
    JournalChildren and Youth Services Review
    Volume52
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2015

    Fingerprint

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

    Bibliographical note

    The full text of this item is not available from the repository. Article in press, full citation details will be updated once available.
    NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Children and Youth Services Review. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Children and Youth Services Review [Vol 52, 2015] DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.03.001 .

    Keywords

    • child protection
    • very young children
    • decision making
    • children’s rights
    • family support

    Cite this

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

    In: Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 52, 2015, p. 68–73.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{5a7c824842884a1ba06f4812157d2edd,
    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, very young children, decision making, children’s rights, family support",
    author = "Paul Bywaters",
    note = "The full text of this item is not available from the repository. Article in press, full citation details will be updated once available. NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Children and Youth Services Review. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Children and Youth Services Review [Vol 52, 2015] DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.03.001 .",
    year = "2015",
    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",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Cumulative jeopardy? A response to Brown and Ward

    AU - Bywaters, Paul

    N1 - The full text of this item is not available from the repository. Article in press, full citation details will be updated once available. NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Children and Youth Services Review. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Children and Youth Services Review [Vol 52, 2015] DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.03.001 .

    PY - 2015

    Y1 - 2015

    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 - very young children

    KW - decision making

    KW - children’s rights

    KW - family support

    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 -