The origins and contexts of contemporary
child welfare
Objectives 2
The development of child welfare services 2
Victorian child welfare 2
Postwar children's departments 3
Reorganisationof the personal social services 4
The permanency movement 5
Immediate origins of the Children Act 1989 6
Key elements of the 1989 Act 10
Social work with children and families 12
Familytrends 12
The social construction of childhopd 14
The purpose of social work 174
Professional competence 18
Some exercises 19
To understand the forces that drive child welfare today, it is necessary to
look at the forces that have shaped it in the past. You may groan at the
thought of beginning your study of child welfare with a history lesson. You
may secretly believe that it doesn't matter what the Victorians did: the
world has changed so much that the issues of the nineteenth century are
totally irrelevant to us today. In some fields, you may be right, but in the
field of child welfare the same issues reoccur generation after generation
because they are not matters of fact to be discovered and resolved but mat-
ters of judgement, perspective and belief. What rights should a child have,
for example? (annver:none, if you regard a child as property.) What rights
should a parent have? What rights should society have? Whose rights take
precedence in the case of conflict? Who decides whose rights take prece-
dence? Through what process? Based on what criteria?
We need to laow how these questions were answered in the past and
why they were answered that way and what the consequences were of
answering them like that. Then, we might be able to avoid malung the same
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
2 An introduction to working with children
mistakes again. Then, we might be able to recognise that there are fashions
in child welfare as there are in everything else: the pendulum swings from
removing children (to save them from bad parents) to keeping children in
their homes (to avoid the traumatic psychological effects of separation),back
to removal (often following a tragedy to a child at home) and back again to
an emphasis on speedy reunification with the birth family. With each new
swing, the knowledge and wisdom so painfully acquired in the previous
swing are lost. With each new swing, we start again, more in a spirit of revo-
lutionary fervour than in a balanced effort to improve what went before.
Accordingly, in this chapter, we will begin by tracing the history of child
welfare from Victorian times through to the most recent major piece of
child-care legislation: the Children Act 1989. We will continue with a dis-
cussion of the social and economic context of child welfare today, and con-
clude with an o v e ~ e wof the ways that child-welfare workers interact with
children, families and organisations.
I
Objectives
It is always a good idea to know what you are reading a chapter for. You
were told to read it - very good - but what exactly is it supposed to teach
you? This chapter should help you to understand the origins and lcey ele-
ments of the Children Act 1989. It should enable you to explore the vital
balance between promoting children's rights, protecting children and
respecting parents' rights. It should give you a beginning understanding of
the social worker's role in relation to children and families.
The development of child-welfare services
Victorian child welfare
An issue that confronts people today as it did in Victorian times is the
treatment of the able-bodied unemployed. Will giving them money for their
keep while they stay at home encourage them in idleness? The Victorians
thought so. In 1834, they passed the Poor Law Amendment Act, which
stated that the able bodied would receive their leep only if they entered
the workhouse. The aim of the Act was to force the unemployed to seek
employment, to eradicate 'out-relief (benefits provided to people living at
home), and to generally deter applications for social assistance. To this end,
conditions in the workhouse were made as harsh as possible. Husbands
and wives were separated; inmates lost the right to vote; and compulsory
The origins and contexts of child welfare 3
work routines were boring, unpleasant and physically hard. This calculated
use of cruelty caused much misery, but failed in its central purpose: to
deter applications for social support. Holinan (1988)notes that the number
of workhouse inmates rose from 78,000 in 1838 to 306,000 by 1848.
Nevertheless, many preferred literally to starve rather than enter the work-
house, and the Poor Law was detested and feared by working-class people
until it was abolished in 1948.
The notable philanthropist Dr Barnardo identified two failings in the pro-
vision of child care under the Poor Law. First, its deterrent nature resulted
in hundreds of destitute children struggling to survive on the streets.
(Preferringto starve meant preferring to have your children starve with you.)
Secondly, for those who were compelled to go there, the regimes in the large
barracks-like workhouses deprived children of their individuality and rights,
and completely failed to prepare them for life in the outside world.
The obvious need to provide more humane forms of care led to the foun-
dation of a number of voluntary child-care societies in the second half of
the nineteenth century, many of them started by individual philanthropists.
These voluntary societies believed that their task was to rescue children
from bad environments, including 'bad parents', and provide them with a
fresh start. Often, the fresh start involved a placement overseas. Between
1867 and 1906, Barnardo's alone sent 18,645 children abroad (Holman,
1988).All the large child-care sdcieties shipped children overseas to desti-
nations such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The boys usually
became farm labourers and most of the girls were placed in domestic ser-
vice. Despite the suffering caused to families and the evident unhappiness
of many of the children concerned, the practice of child emigration contin-
ued until after the Second World War.
Although the voluntary societies were established as a direct response to
perceived flaws in the Poor Law, the state and voluntary sectors had much
in common. Both sectors stigmatised the receipt of help. Both held that
children in need, who were always the children of the poor, should be
removed from the unfortunate influence of idle and evil parents. Neither
sector was concerned with maintaining contact between children and par-
ents. Neither entertained the notion that help provided in their own homes
might prevent children from entering institutions in the first place. Of
course, from the state's perspective, such help would have constituted the
very out-relief that the Poor Law was designed to abolish.
Postwar children's departments
The hostile attitude towards birth parents which characterised the child-
care system during the Victorian era changed little until the arrival of the
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
4 An introduction to working with children
Children Act 1948. This Act created Children's Departments, and adopted
an altogether more humane approach to the care of separated children,
including provision for reuniting children with their birth parents.
Although the Act itself did not mention the concept of prevention, the
new staff responsible for the Children's Departments (a Children's Officer
and Child-Care Officers in each department) formed professional associa-
tions that campaigned for powers to intervene with families to prevent their
children being taken into care. The case for prevention was fuelled by the
comprehensive social-welfare legislation introduced in the 1940s by the
Labour government. This provided the more favourable socio-economiccon-
text needed for preventive work. Concern about the high costs of residential
care and the high rates of fostering breakdown, together with Bowlby's
(1952) theories about the deleterious effects of maternal deprivation (which
we will discuss in more detail in Chapter 2), provided a further impetus. In
addition, The Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 1952 required
Children's Departments to act on any information indicating that a child
was in need of care and protection, whether or not the neglect was 'wilful'.
Thus, by the mid-195Os, most Children's Departments were actively work-
ing to prevent the admission of children into care (Packman, 1975).
At the same time, concern centred on another facet of preventive work:
preventing delinquency. The Ingleby Report viewed delinquency as a conse-
quence of family problems, to be considered by the courts in the context of
the family (Report of the Conznzittee orz Children and Young Persons, 1960).
One of the recommendations of the Ingleby Report became Section 1 of
the Children and Young Persons Act 1963. This Section placed a duty on
social workers to help any familywhose children were in need but were not
in the care of the local authority. The Children's Departments thus moved
from providing a rescue service to promoting the welfare of children by
working with the family as a whole. This role was supported by the later
Children and Young Persons Act 1969. Though never fully implemented,
the 1969 Act attempted to do three things: integrate methods for dealing
with deprived and with delinquent youngsters (since delinquency was now
viewed as a consequence of deprivation); reduce the role of criminal pro-
ceedings in dealing with young people; and assign responsibility for both the
prevention and treatment of delinquency to the Children's Departments.
Reorganisationof the personalsocial services
Respected though the Children's Departments appear to have been, they
were relatively short-lived. On 1 April 1971, the Local Authority Social
Services Act came into operation, and the Children's Departments were
incorporated into single, generic, social services departments (SSDs),
The origins and contexts of child welfare 5
together with other previously separate local authority departments such as
those for welfare and mental health. This amalgamation had been recom-
mended by the Seebohm Committee (Report of the Conznzittee on Local
Actthority and Allied Services, 1968).In fact, this was perhaps the only rec-
ommendation of note from the Committee's visionary report that reached
the statute book. The Seebohm Report urged much more than the mere
reorganisation of the personal social services. It included a whole chapter
on the prevention of social distress; it wanted services to be accessible to
communities; it argued that communities should participate in the running
of services, and that services should be directed toward the well-being of
whole communities and not only to social casualties.
None of this came to pass. Moreover, many soon came to believe that
the reorganisation of the personal social services had led to a deterioration
in the quality of children's services. For example, it was felt that insuffi-
cient attention was devoted to prevention and rehabilitation, and that social
workers had lost the skills required to place children with good quality sub-
stitute parents. These failings were attributed to the negative impact of the
generic approach to social work, staff changes, pressure of work, and the
large size and complexity of the new SSDs (Parker, 1980).
Greater demands were also placed on social workers by rising poverty
and deprivation in the 1970s (%ownsend, 1979). SSDs were obliged to
ration services, focusing on prbviding protection to children who had
already been neglected or abused rather than undertaking preventive work.
Increasingly, social workers came to be perceived by service users as with-
holders rather than distributors of resources (National Institute of Social
Work, 1982).
The permanencymovement
The standing of social workers and the case for prevention were further
undermined by other significant events that took place in the 1970s. These
included the tragic death of six-year-old Maria Colwell, who was killed by
her stepfather after being removed from foster care and reunited with her
birth mother. Maria's death sparked a media onslaught against social worl-
ers, who were accused of worshipping the 'blood tie' between children and
birth parents, to the point where the rights of the birth parents were put
before the rights of the foster parents or the child (Parton, 1985).The pub-
lication in 1973 of Rowe and Lambert's book Childre~zWho Wait was also
influential. These authors reported that large numbers of children were
allowed to 'drift in care' without decisions being talcen to ensure their per-
manent futures (Rowe and Lambert, 1973). Holman (1988) considers that
the book was unfairly used as ammunition by the growing adoption lobby,
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
6 An introductionto working with children
who saw adoption as an answer to drift and as an ultimate form of perma-
nency. Nevertheless, Maria's appalling death after removal from a stable
foster home, combined with Rowe and Lambert's book, did seem to suggest
that children were at risk from inadequate birth parents and could and
should be placed with substitute parents.
The thrust towards permanent removal of children from their birth par-
ents was supported by those who believed that children need a single set of
parents in order to be emotionally stable (Goldstein et al., 1973, 1979). It
was further fuelled by the 'cycle of deprivation' theory that was much
favoured by Sir Keith Joseph, the then Minister of State for Social Services.
This theory identified child abuse as primarily a problem of the lower social
classes, and claimed that inadequate parents pass on their weaknesses to
their children, who reproduce them in the next generation. You might note
an echo here of the 'idle and evil' parents from whom children were being
saved the century before.
However, there were a number of organisations which opposed the gov-
ernment's intention to make permanence a central part of child-care policy.
These included the Family Rights Group, the Child Poverty Action Group,
the National Council of One Parent Families, Gingerbread, MIND and the
British Association of Social Workers. Despite the efforts of these bodies,
the Children Act 1975 clearly reflected the philosophies of the perma-
nency movement. The 1975 Act gave SSDs much greater control over the
lives of children in their care, facilitated an easier severance of parental
links, and gave greater security to children in their substitute homes
(Parton, 1985).
The permanency doctrine, coupled with further child-abuse inquiries
throughout the 1970s, changed social-work practice. Most SSDs set up
child-abuse registers, area review committees, and special training for prac-
titioners. A large number of SSDs formulated policies designed to opera-
tionalise permanency. For example, specialist fostering and adoption units
were created to find permanent homes for 'children who wait'. The
Departments were also more willing to assume 'parental rights'. According
to Holman (1988), a higher proportion of parents had lost their say in their
children's lives by the end of the 1970s than at any other time, including
the reign of the Poor Law.
Immediate origins of the ChildrenAct 1989
Those who opposed the permanency movement continued to campaign for
a more preventive approach to vulnerable families, and against injustices
suffered by birth parents. In the early 1980s, the Family Rights Group
demonstrated a need for a change in the law by compiling a dossier of cases
The origins and contexts of child welfare 7
in which birth parents had unjustly been deprived of their parental rights.
In 1984, a High Court judge argued that the law was being manipulated
against birth parents and in favour of adoptive parents (Hill and Aldgate,
1996,p. 5).
The Social Services Committee of the House of Commons, chaired by
Renee Short MP, launched an inquiry. The Short Report (House of
Commons, 1984) argued that the emphasis on permanency had inhibited
the development of policies and practices that would enable parents either
to look after their own children permanently or to maintain links with them
in long-term care. It recommended a range of measures to support and pro-
tect parents and to reunite children in care with their families. It also sup-
ported the concept of a family court as the most suitable environment for
making decisions about children's lives. Logically enough, given the empha-
sis on the family court, the report called for a major review of the legal
frameworkof child care.
At roughly the same time as the Short Report was published, an influen-
tial series of nine research projects commissioned by the Department of
Health came to fruition. An anthology was published, entitled Social Worlz
Decisions in Child Care, which drew together the findings from these stud-
ies (Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS), 1985a). In a
praiseworthy effort to communic8te research findings to policy-makers and
practitioners, the anthology was'widely circulated and became known as
the 'Pink Book'. The Pink Book showed that it was becoming more difficult
for vulnerable families to receive help and support, while, at the same time,
local authorities were showing an increasing readiness to take compulsory
action in relation to children (Hill and Aldgate, 1996). One of the studies
revealed that children in foster and residential care often quickly lost con-
tact with their birth parents, although maintenance of such contact was
associated with an early return home (Millham et al., 1986).Another study
showed that the majority of parents whose children were placed away from
home were willing and able to care for their own children, once given the
opportunity (Fisher et al., 1986).
Together, these studies highlighted the need for partnership with par-
ents and provided examples of successful partnerships between parents and
social workers. In some cases, social workers were able to help parents
retain their role as responsible authority figures in relation to their children.
If short-term care were necessary, it need not be viewed negatively in terms
of failure, but should rather be regarded as a positive way to prevent the
permanent break-up of families by providing temporary relief (DHSS,
1985a, p. 16). Given such a positive viewpoint, social workers were able to
facilitate parental involvement in the processes, negotiations and family
dynamics related to admission and discharge (DHSS, 1985a, p. 20).
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
8 An introductionto working with children
Drawing on examples of successful partnership efforts, the Pink Book
emphasised the concepts of respite care, shared care and reunification.
In response to the Short Report and the Pink Book, the government
established an interdepartmental committee whose findings led, in 1985, to
the publication of a Review of Child Care Law (DHSS, 1985b).While the
Review failed to consider the introduction of family courts and did not
emphasise the role of primary prevention, it did follow the Short Report in
emphasising the need to enable parents to keep or receive back their chil-
dren. For example, the Review supported the notions of 'respite' and 'shared
care'. It also recommended that local authority power to assume parental
rights should be annulled, and that compulsory removals should need court
approval. In addition, it recommended changes aimed at reducing the num-
ber of children in care. These included restricting the use of Place of Safety
Orders and Interim Care Orders, and abolishing school non-attendance as
a sole !ground for making a care order. The Review also argued that, unless
it was contrary to the interests of the children concerned, local authorities
should have a duty to return separated children to their parents. Following
from the Review of Child Care Law, the government produced a White
Paper entitled The Law on Child Care and Family Services, which was pub-
lished in January 1987 (House of Commons, 1987).
This move towards protecting the rights of parents was countered by the
resurgence of widespread concern about the child-abuse deaths that
occurred in the mid-1980s. Such tragedies drew attention to inadequate
levels of protection for vulnerable children. The most publicised cases were
those of Jasmine Beckford, Tyra Henry and IGmberley Carlile (see respec-
tively, London Borough of Brent, 1985; London Borough of Lambeth,
1987; and London Borough of Greenwich, 1987).The deaths of these chil-
dren underscored many of the issues highlighted in the case of Maria
Colwell: the child's good relationship with her foster parents; the weak or
non-existent bond with the natural mother; the problems surrounding the
stepfather figure; the failure of welfare agencies to .respond adequately to
signs of abuse; and the failure to take notice of the child's wishes
(Hendrick, 1994).
Jasmine Beckford and Tyra Henry were both in local authority care and
both were killed after being returned to their natural families. The social
workers in each case were perceived as 'being too naive and sentimental
with parents, and failing to concentrate on the interests of the children and
to use the statutory authority invested in them' (Parton, 1991, p. 75). By
contrast, Kimberley Carlile was not in care and the report indicated that
'both the child care system and the law had failed the social worker(s)
in their primary task. Both law and system were therefore seen as in need
of major reform' (Parton, 1991, pp. 75-6). The report also recognised the
The origins and contexts of child welfare 9
difficulties and contradictions inherent in child-protection work in a liberal
state. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, the primary blame and responsi-
bility for IGmberley's death was felt to lie with the senior social worker car-
rying the case. This conclusion may be viewed as the inevitable outcome of
the quasi-judicial way that child-abuse inquiries operate. Parton (1991,
p. 77) argues that 'when an inquiry sets about its task in such individualis-
tic and legalistic ways it i d 1 always find an individual - usually the front-
line social worker - to hold responsibleJ.
In the wake of such inquiries, social-work policy and practice in relation
to child abuse became rather conservative and defensive. Not surprisingly,
it sought to minimise risk and avert the public furore associated with child
deaths. Such a restricted and guarded approach to children and families
contrasted sharply with the approach promoted by the Short Report, the
research on decision-making in child care, and the Review of Child Care
Law (Parton, 1991, p. 78).
This clash of perspectives was one of the factors that fed into the
Cleveland controversy about child sexual abuse that occurred in mid-1987
(Parton, 1991, p. 78). In June 1987, prior to the publication of the
Kimberley Carlile and Tyra Henry reports in December of that year, the
media reported that an unusually large number of children, around 200,
had been removed from their parents and placed into care. The social
workers concerned had acted on'the recommendation of two paediatricians
who, using a newly developed physical test, had diagnosed the majority of
the children as having been anally abused (La Fontaine, 1990). The local
MP supported the distraught parents and raised the matter in Parliament.
This led to the establishment of a public inquiry chaired by Mrs Justice
Butler-Sloss (Butler-Sloss, 1988; Corby, 1993). Parton (1991, p. 79)
observes that:
if previous inquiries demonstrated that welfare professionals, particularly
social workers, failed to protect the lives and interest of children and
intervened too little too late into the private, the concerns focused around
Cleveland seemed to demonstrate that professionals, this time paediatri-
cians as well as social workers, failed to recognise the rights of parents
and intervened too soon and in a too heavy-handed way into the family. '
The Cleveland Report lent support to the legal framework set out in the
White Paper, with modifications to reinforce the rights of parents and
make more explicit the shift towards 'identifying the law itself as the crucial
mechanism for both informing decision-making and resolving disputes'
(Parton, 1991,p. 114).
This anguished p ~ s h - ~ u l lbetween the right of children to be protected
and the right of parents to autonomy was a major factor in the shaping of
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
10 An introductionto working with children
the Children Act 1989. One of the most important objectives of the Act
was to strike a balance between the protection of children and the auton-
omy of the family. However, there were also other factors to be considered:
for example, the previously separated and fragmented public and private
laws regarding children. In this chapter so far, we have considered the
influences associated with public law. With regard to private law, Hill and
Aldgate (1996, pp. 4 and 5) note that throughout the 1980s there had been
growing concern in the courts that children in divorce cases were victims of
an adversarial approach which frequently severed their links with the non-
custodial parent. Moreover, research had shown the adverse consequences
that protracted court cases could have on the welfare of such children. The
Act brought together public and private law.
A third factor concerned children with disabilities. Child abuse scandals
and research on the variable quality of services for children with disabilities
had highlighted the need for improved services for such children. The 1989
Act unified services caring for all children, including children with disabili-
ties, those with special educational needs, those in boarding schools and
those living in hospital on a long-term basis.
Key elements of the 1989Act
The Children Act 1989 is widely seen as the most important piece of child-
care law passed by the British Parliament for England and Wales in the
twentieth century. The over-arching aims of the Act are to make the law
concerning children easier to understand and use, more consistent across
different situations, and more flexible. The Act is also intended to male the
law more appropriate to the needs of children by promoting services for,
and decisions about, children, young people and their families that are
more child-centred (Open University, 1990).
The Department of Health (1989a, p. 1) states that the 'Act rests on the
belief that children are best looked after within the family with both par-
ents playlng a full part and without resort to legal proceedings'. That belief
is reflected in:
e the new concept of parental responsibility;
o the ability of unmarried fathers to share that responsibility by agreement
with the mother;
o the local authorities' duty to give support for children and their families;
o the local authorities' duty to return a child looked after by them to the
family unless this is against his or her interest;
0 the local authorities' duty to ensure contact with the parents whenever
possible for a child looked after by them away from home.
The origins and contexts of child welfare 11
The new concept of parental responsibility replaces the notion of 'parental
rights1and is intended to emphasise the obligations of parents towards their
children. Parents are only given rights if they exercise responsibility.
Additionally, the rights that parents have in relation to their children are for
the purpose of enabling the parents to fulfil their parental responsibility in
relation to their children (and not for their own benefit). Parental responsi-
bility can be shared, thus allowing the inclusion of absent parents and
other close relatives. For example, unmarried fathers may obtain parental
responsibility, either by agreement with the mother or by court order (see
Eekelaar and Dinpall, 1990).
The Act also acknowledges that parents may need support in fulfilling
their responsibilities. Therefore, previously restricted notions of prevention
are supplanted by 'family support' and local authorities are given a new duty
to facilitate the upbringing of children by their parents. Moreover, the Act
promotes partnership between parents and local authorities. Under the
Act, local authorities can no longer assume parental rights or demand
notice of a child's removal from 'accommodation'. Instead, they must work
on the basis of negotiation and voluntary agreements. Where this fails and
children are removed, parents must be kept fully informed and can only be
denied access to their children in exceptional circumstances.
The Act also introduces new' principles for court proceedings. The
child's welfare is paramount andiinust be considered in the context of his
or her physical, emotional and educational needs, age, gender, background
and the capacity of caregivers to perform their task adequately. Further,
when legal process becomes necessary, delay must be avoided: emergency
protection orders must be of short duration and courts must work to
timetables to prevent children suffering the adverse consequences of delay.
In addition, no order should be made unless an order is considered prefer-
able to no order at all. Finally, the child's voice must be heard: children's
wishes and feelings must be taken into account when decisions are made.
The Act seeks a balance between children and parents, the state and
families, courts and local authorities. Where power is unequal, the Act
attempts to safeguard the weak. Thus, the needs of children are placed first
because of their dependence and vulnerability, but parents and other sig-
nificant adults are accorded increased respect and consideration (Packrnan
and Jordan, 1991).
The Act makes specific reference to race, culture, language and religion
as factors that must be considered in relation to the welfare of children.
The Act confers a new duty on local authorities to take account of the dif-
ferent racial groups to which children in need belong when providing day
care or accommodation. The Department of Health (1989b), Tlze Care of
Children, Principles and Practice i n Regulations and Guida~zce,emphasises
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
12 An introduction to working with children
the special issues that arise for black children and young people and those nion (EU) over the past 20-30 years:
from ethnic minority groups. It states that such children need to develop a
positive self image that includes their cultural and ethnic origins, and that
this must be taken into account by services planners and caregivers.
It should be noted that the law on the adoption of children (see Chapter
6) is little affected by the 1989 Act. In addition, more recent legislation in
England and Wales has addressed youth justice (Criminal Justice Acts
1991 and 1993) and education (Education Act 1993). Nevertheless, the
1989 Children Act does represent the main legal context for social work
with children in England and Wales, and deals with most areas of child
care, including residential care, disability, day care, child abuse, and family
support.
Scotland and, to some degree, Northern Ireland, have separate legal sys-
tems (Ruxton, 1996). Until recently, the central legislation concerning
child care in Scotland was the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. This pro-
vided the legislativefoundation for local authority social-work departments,
and introduced a system of children's hearings (Tisdall, 1996). The
Children (Scotland) Act 1995 has introduced new arrangements for pro-
tecting children at risk and caring for children and families in need. This
was necessary as only part of the Children Act 1989 - that concerned with
day care - applied to Scotland. A Children (Northern Ireland) Order has
also been introduced. This is closely modelled on the Children Act 1989
for England and Wales (Kelly and Pinkerton, 1996).
Social work with children and families
Now that we have loolced at the key elements of the 1989 Act, we come to
the application of these key elements in working with children and fami-
lies. Families perform the primary role in the socialisation of children.
However, the nature of family life has undergone considerable change over
recent decades (Allan, 1997). Knowledge of changing family forms and of
the diverse nature of childhood experience is essential for effective social
work. This is in part because there is an ideology about ideal family types
and ideal childhoods of which workers need to be aware so that they do not
attempt, consciously or implicitly, to impose these ideal types on the fami-
lies they are working with.
Family trends
Ruxton (1996, p. 65) identifies the followingmajor demographic and socio-
economic changes that have influenced families throughout the European
line in the birth rate so that deaths outnumber births;
s, an increase in the period of time
etween marriage and the birth of the first child, and a rise in the num-
ncrease in cohabitation, especially in northern countries in the
ife expectancy, and an ageing population;
uding a growth in stepfamilies and
in particular on a part-time basis.
Ruxton (1996, p. 65) attributes these changes to a number of factors,
including: economic restructuring and increasing labour-market flexibility;
shifts in personal attitudes - particularly towards women's roles - resulting
from the rise of feminism; increased control over fertility; the growth of
multi-racial societies; increasing debate over gay and lesbian lifestyles; and
the effects of government policies.
Most people in Europe live in private households. Households with a
family can be classified as childlpss couples, couples with children, and
lone parents with children. L0ne3~arentscan be grouped into four main
categories: single, divorced, separated and widowed. Over the last 30 years
there has been a dramatic rise in the number of lone-parent family house-
holds as a consequence of the rise in divorce rates, and the number of
births outside marriage. Ireland has the highest proportion of lone-parent
households in the EU (10.6 per cent), followed by Belgium (9.2 per cent)
and the UI< (9.0 per cent), while Finland (4.1 per cent) and Sweden (3.9
per cent) have the lowest proportions (Ruxton, 1996, p. 71).
In the UK, the increasing number of one-parent families has caused
concern about the future of the family and, indeed, society. The number of
divorces and one-parent families have more than doubled in the UK since
1971 (Dennis and Erdos, 1992). By 1993 the UK had by far the highest
divorce rate in the EU at 3.1 per thousand of the population; Denmark and
Sweden were second highest (Ruxton, 1996). Around 28 per cent of births
in the UK now take place outside marriage, and each year the parents of an
estimated 150,000 additional children under 16 are divorced (Dennis and
Erdos, 1992).
For both left and right of the political spectrum the family is seen as
the foundation stone of a free society; as the place where children learn
voluntary restraint, respect for others and a sense of personal responsi-
bility (Dennis and Erdos, 1992). From this perspective, the decline of the
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
14 An introductionto working with children
'traditional family' and the rise in the numbers of single mothers is seen as
having resulted in increased crime, violence and degradation (see Davies,
Berger and Carlson, 1993).
Charles Murray (1990) has linked the growth in numbers of single
unmarried mothers to what he regards as a developing British underclass
comprised of persons who live outside the norms of social life, whose fam-
ily ties are broken, who rely on welfare benefits rather than work, and who
resort to crime and drugs. However, Brown (1990) has challenged Murray's
assertion that single unmarried mothers constitute a special problem, argu-
ing that divorced mothers as a group spend longer on benefit than unmar-
ried mothers and that never-married mothers remain lone parents for a
shorter average period than divorced mothers. Further, Walker (1990) con-
tends that Murray's underclass thesis 'blames the victim' and, therefore,
diverts attention from the true cause of the problem: the mechanisms
through which resources are distributed.
The social construction of childhood
It may seem that it is quite easy to define childhood. Childhood is that period
of time during which one is a child. Since being a child is a matter of biology,
it would follow that childhood is a biological category and should vary little
either culturally or historically (Stainton Rogers and Stainton Rogers, 1992).
This easy assumption has been increasingly challenged over recent decades.
In a seminal worlc entitled Centuries of Childhood, Ariits (1962) contended
that in medieval society the idea of childhood did not exist.
This is not to suggest that children were neglected, forsaken or despised.
The idea of childhood is not to be confused with affection for children; it
corresponds to an awareness of the particular nature of childhood, that
particular nature which distinguishes the child from the adult, even the
young adult. In medieval society, this awareness was laclung.
(Ariss, 1962)
Whilst his methodology and conclusions have been challenged (Pollock,
1993; Cunningham, 1995), his material has strongly contributed to the
developing notion of childhood as a social construct. Jenks (1982) as well
notes that childhood is not a natural phenomenon, but rather a social con-
struct: that is, we view children and relate to them differently depending on
our theories about what children are like and what their role ought to be in
society; and these theories change across cultures and over time. Jenlcs
(1982)says:
Children have always been with us. However, the manner of their recog-
nition by adults and thus the form of their relationship with adults has
The origins and contexts of child welfare 15
altered from epoch to epoch. They cannot be treated as invariant fea-
tures of the social landscape. Their location emerges from a set of social
relations of control, operating through a hierarchy and based on age. As a
social category the child has come to us through time and this passage
has accompanied changes in the economy, alterations in the structure of
the family, the transition to industrialization and urbanization.
endr rick (1994) begins his historical account of child welfare in England
from 1872 to 1989 by surveying important social constructions of British
during the nineteenth century. In approximate chronological
order, these were: the natural child, the Romantic child, the evangelical
child, the factory child, the delinquent child, the schooled child and the
psycho-medical child. Whilst not denying that these constructions are
devoid of a biological dimension, or denying the effects of physical being,
Hendrick (1994) considers that 'childhood'was, and is, composed by adults -
mainly from the professional middle class.
To guide his analysis of child welfare, Hendrick employs two dualisms -
mindbody and victimlthreat. Much of the history of child-welfare policy
has involved the imposition of adult will over children's bodies and minds.
Equally, children have been variously presented as victims or threats
throughout the course of the lagt two centuries. These dualisms were
not ends in themselves but rather served as ordering categories by which
child welfare could be justified or organised. According to Hendrick, their
task was to transform children into investments of a racial, educational,
familial, medical, social or political nature. Put another way, 'the health,
welfare and rearing of children have been linked in thought and practice to
the destiny of the nation and the responsibilities of the state' (Hendriclc,
1994,p. 14).
Certainly, contemporary child-welfare policy and practice continue to
reflect the concerns of the state. Fox Harding (1991) considers that in the
UK, 'despite disputes, there seems to be a broad consensus about the
importance of children and of the safeguarding of their welfare' (p. 4).
However, there is a big difference between consensus around safeguard-
ing children and allocation of resources to enhance their welfare. This
may also be illustrated by the apparent difference in policy between
enhancing the welfare of children i n their ozvn right (for example, in child
protection) and enhancing their welfare within their family context (in
family support).
Fox Harding (1991) has proposed a model of four possible ways of look-
ing at child-care policy. She developed the following classification (p. lo),
which also reflects a chronological development in our thinking about chil-
dren and childhood.
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
16 An introductionto working with children
I. Laissez-faire and patriarchy
People holding this perspective believe that power in the family should
not be disturbed except in very extreme circumstances, and the role of
the state should be a minimal one.
2. State paternalisllz and child protection
Here, there is a belief in the legitimacy of state intervention to protect
children from their families; intervention may undervalue the biological
family connections and be authoritarian in approach. In this perspective
children are seen as essentially vulnerable and dependent.
3. The modern defence ofthe birthfamily and parents' rights
Intervention of the state is for the purpose of supporting families, help-
ing to defend and preserve birth families. This perspective is critical of
the lack of emphasis on prevention and reuniting children separated
from their families; having entered care, children should be kept in con-
tact with their families and helped to return to them.
4. Children's rights and child liberation
People holding this perspective view the child as an actor in his or her
own situation, an independent person with rights. In the extreme posi-
tions, children should be allowed the same rights as adults (e.g., driving,
drinking, engaging in sexual relations). In the more moderate positions,
children have rights to express their views and to have those views taken
into consideration in decisions about them. It incorporates a greater
emphasis on the self-determination of the child.
Theoretical classifications may not, on the face of it, seem particularly rele-
vant to practice; but all social workers have personal views about how far
the state should interfere with the family and they tend to practise in such
a way that what they do fits as far as possible with what they believe to be
right. If you are a 'defender of the birth family', for example (category 3
above), you will work hard to reunite children with even the least promising
of birth parents, and a higher percentage of children on your caseload will
go home than would have been the case had you believed differently.
Conversely, if you are a 'child-protection' person (category 2), you may
believe that abused children should be automatically apprehended and
their parents, who were to blame for the abuse in the first place, should
have no further say in the matter. You will be less likely to pursue reunifica-
tion and more likely to make active efforts to find the child a permanent liv-
ing situation outside the birth family.
The origins and contexts of child welfare 17
In a broader sense, you behave in practice according to what you believe
your purpose as a social worker to be - which brings us to a consideration
of the purpose of social work.
The purpose of social work
There is no doubt that the nature of professional social work places it
firmly among the most challenging occupations. Jordan (1997) argues that
social work exists in tension between its principles of care, compassion and
harmony, and its tasks of assessment, rationing and enforcement. Social
workers serve the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society -
people who may be viewed, on the one hand, as victims of society, deserving
care and compassion, or on the other hand, as threats to society, needing to
be controlled through the machinery of state. Most social workers would
incline to the former view. Like Davies (1997, p. 2) they see their primary
task as 'malung life more bearable for those whom others might prefer to
forget - or choose to condemn' and they would agree with the Central
Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW, 1996, p.
16) when it states that 'the purpose of social work is to enable children,
adults, families, groups and communities to function, participate and
develop in society'. i
Nevertheless, most social worLers will find themselves, at various points
in their careers, in positions where the controlling function seems to be
paramount. They will be 'employed by a range of statutory, voluntary, and
private organisations, and work in collaboration with colleagues from allied
professions and departments, as part of a network of welfare, health, hous-
ing, education and criminal justice provision' (CCETSW, 1996, p. 16). In
other words, they will work as representatives of the very systems with
which the people they are trying to help are most often in conflict.
In addition, professional social workers practise within legislative frame-
works and organisational policies and procedures. They are hedged in by
paperwork, bound by procedures and principles with which they might not
agree. The art then is to find a balance. In the words of CCETSW (1996,
p. 16), social workers must 'balance the needs, rights, responsibilities and
resources of people with those of the wider community, and provide appro-
priate levels of support, advocacy, care, protection and control'. This is obvi-
ously easier said than done. Jordan (1997, p. 10)likens social workers to:
blue-helmeted UN troops serving as peace-keepers in a civil war, their
role is ambiguous, and they are often denounced, and sometimes
attacked by both sides. They are open to manipulation and exploitation
by the combatants, and their work is always morally compromised. Their
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
18 An introductionto working with children
future is as uncertain as they search for bargains and compromises amid
escalating antagonism.
Given that a social worker's role, while so worthwhile, is yet so challenging
and demanding, it is apparent that social workers need a high level of pro-
fessional competence.
Professional competence
Evans (1997, pp. 357-8) offers a model of social-work professional compe-
tence that comprises four components:
I. A repertoire upon which the worlzer drws, which contains: (a) the req-
uisite knowledge, skills and values set out in the relevant literature (e.g.
CCETSW, 1996); (b) attributes relevant to the professional worker as a
whole person, including warmth, empathy, emotional maturity, commit-
ment, integrity and creativity.
2. EfjCective practice, which comprises all the activities undertaken by
the professional worker. This includes direct work with services users,
indirect work, internal judgement and decision-making, and observable
behaviours.
3. Higher order learning slzills, which include: (a) slulls for employing the
repertoire of knowledge, slulls and values in practice, such as relating
theory and research to practice; (b) transfer of learning; (c) skills for
developing the repertoire, such as critical reflection on practice; evaluat-
ing practice outcomes; effective use of supelvision, consultancy and
other dialogue; and study skills.
4. Developnzent through time, which takes account of the way that pro-
fessionals can adapt their higher-order learning skills through time as
they gain experience.
To qualify for the award of the Diploma in Social Work, CCETSW (1996)
stipulates that students in the UK must provide evidence of their compe-
tence to:
1. Conznzunicate and engage
Communicate and engage with organisations and people within commu-
nities to promote opportunities for children, adults, families and groups
at risk or in need to function, participate and develop in society.
. Pro~~zoteand enable
ork in partnership to assess and review people's circumstances and
an responses to need and risk.
. Intervene and provide services
tervene and provide services to achieve change, through provision or
purchase of appropriate levels of support, care, protection and control.
5. Worlz in orga~zizatiolzs
Contribute to the work of organizations.
6. Develop professio~zalcol~zpetence
Manage and evaluate their own capacity to develop professional
competence.
CCETSW (1996, p. 17) holds that 'competence in social work is the prod-
uct of knowledge, slulls and values. It is only practice which is founded on
values, carried out in a shlled manner and informed by knowledge, critical
analysis and reflection which is competent practice.'
J ,
Throughout the rest of the book, we will be loolung at ways in which social
workers can apply these competencies to the challenging situations which
arise in the field of child welfare. In this first chapter, we have discussed
where the Children Act 1989 came from in terms of its history and what its
key elements are. We have looked briefly at the way that ideas about 'family'
and 'childhood' change over time; and we have touched on issues around
the different and often conflicting rights of children, parents and the state.
In the next chapter, we will explore theories of child development.
Some exercises
a Do you think that delinquent youngsters are delinquent because they
have been deprived? What might be other factors contributing to delin-
quency? Relate your discussion to the two dualisms employed by
Hendrick (1994) - mindbody and victimlthreat.
* What do you think needs to be in place before efforts at prevention can
be expected to be successful? Discuss attitudes, resources and policies
that you think would be necessary.
a Do these attitudes, resources and policies also apply to family support?
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely