Construction And Understanding Of Childhood Social Work Essay

Construction And Understanding Of puerility Social Work shewIn order to consider how pincer preventative covering policy and come has been shaped, a definition of minor protection and authoritative harm and ill-usage is lookd. The Department for Education (DFE, 2011) defines child protection as the action that is carried step to the fore to safeguard children who argon suffering, or atomic number 18 likely to suffer, significant harm. more all over the Children Act (1989) defines harm as ill-treatment including snub, emotional, sexual and physical ab subprogram. Interestingly, Parton et al (2012) suggested that determinations of what should be considered child laugh at be socially constructed, and atomic number 18 indeed reflective of the refining and values at a specific minute of arc in time.To begin, puerility is a status that is documented worldwide and passim history, which neartimes happen upons the child as innocent ,vuln date of referenceble, a consum er, a player alongside other household earners, a threat to society and it is a construction that changes over time and ass (Pr show up, 2005). Historians of childhood have argued over the meaning, much(prenominal) as Aries (1960) cited by Veerman (1992, p5) stated the imagination of childhood didnt exist before the seventeenth century therefore children were mini bounteouss with the identical rights, duties and skills. This judgment was musical accompanimented by the poor rectitude (1601) which was a formalise system of training children in trades to contribute to society when they grew up (Bloy, 2002). some other example came from Locke (1632-1734) and the Tabula Rasa model. This proposes that children were morally neutral and were the products of their parents (Horner, 2012). The nineteenth century showed it was the parents responsibility to cite love and pertinent correction, to bring out the good in their disposition thus helping them to become contributing member s of society. This could easily lead to blaming the parents as good or grim establish on the deportments of their child, since the child was non considered as his own agent. The 1834 Poor Law Reform Act would support Lockes idea and children who were sent to reachhouses, would participate in schooling to imprint k this instantledge. Although this incurred a number of scandals, for example inmates eating the rotting flesh from bones, the governances responded by introducing sterner rules for those operating(a) workhouses, along with regular inspections (cited by Berry 1999, p29). Fox Harding (1997) described this era as laissez faire which was based on family privacy and minimal state discussion that allowed families lives to remain private and behind closed doors.An alternative concept from Rousseau (1712) suggested the idea of innocence a child was born angelic until the world influenced them. This was significant in terms of child protection with the implementation childrens charities such as Save the Children (founded in 1919). They portrayed children in a variety of adult situations and as poor victims worthy of being rescued (Macek, 2006) using coeval ideas of childhood. Interestingly the Children and Young Persons Act (1933) was introduced to protect the welfare of the child, including any psyche legally liable to have neglected them in a vogue likely to cause wound to his health. Nonetheless it could be argued that the cause of injury may non have been undecomposedy understood considering caning in schools was common until 1987. withal some may argue this was legalised abuse, and in rent contradiction to legislation put in place to protect children. abject into the twentieth century took a wide defect from the laissez faire plan of attack and along with the concept of childhood, became the notion of state paternalism. Child protection commit was based on extensive state intervention to protect children from poor parental care (Fox Hard ing, 1997). These changes led to a sharing of blame with their parents for children becoming anti-social (a demon) or a great chance uponr (an angel) in society. The demonic model illustrated by Pifer (2000) was already seen in childhood construction but blamed society, not the child, when as Rousseau noted is the romantic discourse that becomes tainted with the corrupt alfresco world. These historical concepts still dictated that children should be seen and not heard and both aspect of the childs life should be determined by their parents or guardians. Although the shift is evident, it could be argued that the laissez faire and paternalist perspective shared a common view of children having restrict capacity for independence and decision making. Pollock (1983) would argue that children were not miniature adults as Aries (1960) claimed, but rattling were at a significantly a lower level of development and so had distinctive motif from adults. This suggests as immature people they could come across mistakes and be excused from full responsibility for their actions.Given the current high profile debates on children, it is universe outrage and moral panics in the media that frequently changes the way things are seen. The look into child dyings has prompted changes in legislation (Parton et al, 2012). Key events such as the close of Maria Coldwell (1974), led to specialist workers instead of generic workers who dealt with the elderly. They were specific to the child and encompassed the needs of the whole family. Serious effort freshen ups in to a childs death was undertaken as a way of discovering how the tragedy occurred, who was responsible, what nonrecreationals were involved, rationalising indivi triple actions and learning lessons for incoming practice (Rose and Barnes, 2008). The publics perception of social workers set(p) more pressure on the notion of identifying peril before the child died which developed many theories and models for t he professional to practice.In contrast to the numerous child deaths, the Cleveland case in 1988 testify the over enthusiasm of state intervention. Children were removed from their families based on an anal retentive reflex test to diagnose sexual abuse. The inquiry recommended greater rights for parents and children and suggests the separation from families was seen as abuse itself (Ashden, 2004). This, and proceeding enquires into the deaths of children, offered dilemmas for social workers representing the most visible agencies at bottom the child protection system, in terms of whether a child should be removed or not. This event was a major policy number one wood and is reflected in the Children Act 1989, where parents rights have been replaced with responsibility in ensuring children turn out to be good citizens of society. However it could be argued that in practice like a shot the Cleveland event still carries stigma with parents believing their children are going to be t aken into care.Given the models of childhood adumbrate in previous paragraphs it is rather predictable that children appear to fit within a particular construct. However children such the assassinateers of Jamie Bulger in 1993 were children carrying out unthinkable, far from innocent acts. These children had a dual status they committed a crime as an adult hitherto still a child in need of protection. Society treasured to look at their background to decide if watching horror movies or having divorced parents or poor discipline made them kill a little boy. The thought in the media flowed from born bad, to being made bad which is the nature nurture debate. Moral panic through media fed into this case and although historically the view had been to protect children, society shifted to the concept of demonising children, newspaper headlines branding them as wicked and evil (Bracchi, 2010). It is interesting that end-to-end history, legislation was apply to protect children yet it conflicts with criminal law, as it does not recognise them as children over ten old age of age (Molan, 2008). It could be argued that criminal law agrees with Aries and children are mini adults, yet social workers guidance refers to children up to the age of seventeen. One could scruple how professionals can work in a multiagency way when conflicting legislation cannot agree what age a child is.Further spotlight cases such as Victoria Climbie (2003) highlighted failings of multi-agency workers (Lamming 2003) and facilitated to shape the next change in legislation. The Every Child Matters green paper which outlined five outcomes to be achieved by all children was enshrined in law as part of The Childrens Act (2004). These were defined as, stay safe, be healthy, enjoy and achieve, achieve economic wellbeing, and make a positive contribution (Knowles, 2006) which gave professionals direction on the minimum requirements for every child, and allowed social workers to intervene to mee t these needs in child protection practice. Nonetheless, the coalition government in 2010 abolished this agenda (McDermid, 2012) suggesting that families are not as important, even though it has underpinned social work practice for a number of years.Nevertheless child deaths continued to be a growing problem, the Baby Peter case (2008) indicated that individuals are failing children and once more multi-agency communication is poor in assessing try. Another case that followed approximately a year later was the Edlington boys (2009) who tortured two young boys. Society thence blamed raise placements and care systems suggesting they do not work and foster placements are as bad as the families they were removed from. Cases such as these developed blame culture, where children were perceived as being failed by the government workers usually the social workers less frequently the police and the politicians (Community Care, 2012). The public birdsong and criticisms of social services w hich followed high profile cases of child abuse make social workers practice to err on the side of caution. This suggests the romantic concept of childhood (i.e. protection of innocence), came to the forefront and children were seen as vulnerable and in need of protection. It appears that each disaster that happens the social construct of children changes.Indeed, researchers into twenty-first century childhood such as Sue Palmer (2006) refers to a Toxic Childhood which is the harm society is causing to children through a competitive, consumer driven, screen-based lifestyle. The media and internet evidence how much it has made it possible for children to consider adult ideas and behaviours, alcohol, sexual activity, drug use and teenage violence that show that distinctions amidst adulthood and childhood are fading. Nevertheless it could be debated that contradictory attitudes remain commonplace with children being constructed as innocent little angels and little devils, innately ca pable of the most atrociously types of crime until the adults in society influenced them.Despite these criticisms the families that children live in are excessively judged to be secretive and deliberate abusers. As a subject children may grow into poor citizens due to not being defend from their families. There is a notion of good families and bad families and very often poor families are classed as poor parents and certain constructions take place without the family even being assessed. To exemplify Tucks (2002) identified a connection in the midst of all forms of abuse and social deprivation, but a possible news field for this is that perpetrators target vulnerable children or women to secure access to children socially take neighbourhoods are characterised by relatively large numbers of lone parents. done the pressures of their circumstances and in family crisis, parents had become caught up in a child protection system that was more attuned to assessing gamble than to bringing out the take up in parents struggling in adversity (DoH, 1995).Moreover Owen and Pritchard (1993) identified the tighties in classifying at risk in terms of the criteria for assessing the levels of risk and what constitutes abuse. The role of professionals safekeeping varying opinions and attitudes towards what constitutes abuse and risk could be argued that this in itself reduces the identification of risk to a child. Nonetheless professionals are still expected to protect children by the Children Act 1989 which outlines significant harm, but is very ambiguous and there is extensive scope for authorities to further define what constitutes a child in need (Brandon et al 1999). The Munro report (2011) on Child shield agrees that social work involves working with this uncertainty and not able to see what goes on in families which suggests little shift . The defensive practice comes from workers who are expected to manage this uncertainty and the issue is that evidence of abuse and neglect is not clearly labelled.Since the implementation of the Children Act 1989 more emphasis was placed on the childs rights but has become very controversial. The idea of defend children and fine-looking them rights may become problematic for adults in terms of taking childrens rights seriously. This could be that children have been under-represented in social theory and policy for many years). It could also be, that adults may be reluctant to relinquish power to the children because they still assume they know what is best for children as the early historians suggest. Franklin (2002) suggests a conflict between adults rights and childrens rights could offer explanations for demonization of children. Another idea could be that giving children rights takes outdoor(a) a childs childhood. This may have been viewed from the idealistic construction of childhood as a time of innocence where they consider that children should not be implicated with important decision-mak ing and responsibility.To further support childrens rights, the children Act 2004 updated the legislation to include the abolition of physical punishment (NSPCC, 2012). However, Owen and Pritchards (1983) idea of cultural relativism whereby specific behaviours in some families is attributed to cultural practice, question the concept of what how significant harm can actually be measured. In cases of child abuse, black and ethnic minority children are therefore at a higher risk because warning signs that would other than have been picked up are ignored and accepted to cultural practices and norms. For suit Rogers, Hevey and Ash (1989) state that the beating of West Indian children can be viewed as traditional use of chastisement within that culture, rather than observed as physical abuse of children. Owen and Pritchard (1983) propose this aspect to racist beliefs and stereotyping, where culture is considered deviant rather than the actions of a caregiver.Conversely Munro (2008) cons iders Effective Child Protection and points out the significance on the value of relationships between families and the worker and suggests this leads to better outcomes by understanding the families and cultures. An effective assessment and intervention in child protection draws from having good interactions and in turn aids parents to endorse information and collaborate with authorities. It could be argued if a worker does not see in certain cultural practices that children could become at risk when peradventure they are not.Another point to consider is the risk posed by professionals that work with children previously society has created an assumption that the rich, social workers, teachers and other professionals that work in child focused roles follow the legislation on protect our children from significant harm. Yet through the power of trust professionals appear to abuse safe spaces designed for children. For example the police report in to the murder of Jessica Chapman an d Holly Wells by the school caretaker in 2002, identified significant failings with realize to police vetting procedures (HMIC, 2004). The Sexual Offences Act 2003 which included offences of provision and abusing positions of trust was corporal with a vetting and barring system to adults working with children and introduced into the safeguarding vulnerable groups Act 2006 (NSPCC, 2012).every bit Nursery manager Vanessa George in 2009 abused children in her setting. The review found a systemic failure in communication throughout and highlighted a common theme of assumption provided a fruitful milieu in which to abuse, a point that has been proficiently highlighted by the mainstream press. The child protection policies and procedures were inadequate and rarely followed, as she feared children would be moved to other settings. The report highlighted how culture had within the nursery stoping staff from challenging Georges in remove behaviour.Cases such as this called for a review of vetting adults who work with children and formed a gentlemans gentleman of legislation, the protection of freedoms Act (2012) which focuses on roles working closely with vulnerable groups. some(prenominal) children related posts such as governors and school inspectors were being removed from the lists although they require having contact with children (Kelly, 2012). Additionally supervised volunteers exit no longer be classed as working in regulated activity. Therefore, individuals barred from working in regulated activity can still volunteer at your school, as long as they are supervised. It could be argued that although the government is keen to shield back the cost of vetting, it does not take into account the risk of grooming which is not negated by supervision. Furthermore, the new process does not allow schools to gybe the barred list when recruiting volunteers which suggests it is providing a false sense of security for all.A further report into child protection by Mu nro A child centred practice in 2011, established that a universal advancement to child protection is preventing the main focus of the child. Munro recommended that the Government and local anesthetic authorities should continually learn from what has happened in the past, however this could be difficult when cases such as Jamie Buglers that buried the hatchet to protect the boys. One could question what professionals can learn from such secretive cases. Additionally, it could be argued that Munros child centred approach offers a authorization negative impact on children and professionals. For instance, if the government removes the normative practice that professionals may be using as guidance, this could create the potential to miss the signs of a child being abused based on judgement alone.Having considered this idea, future risks assessment needs to change a hypothetical and practical model for possible state intervention in cases where a caregivers ability to care for a chi ld is questioned. The British government will be pivotal to play a major role in reforming existing legislation and constructing new strong legislation to allow troth by care services in the most high risk cases of child abuse. This request upon the government is an outcome of the philosophy of risk now prevalent in the UK, where it is assumed that the government has the ability to foresee and prevent abuse and maltreatment which holds the government when this does not happen.In conclusion, the historical views of childhood can be seen throughout the numerous ideological discourses and demonstrate how societys constructions of childhood can, has and will carry on to influence laws and legislation regarding the ways in which child protection is shaped. Although it is recognised that childhood warrants some degree of protective status, socioeconomic and cultural circumstances do affect young childrens behaviour and the way professionals practice. Those changed conditions also influen ce adult beliefs about rearing children and how protecting children should be. The emphasis on risk and assessing risk has changed over time, what was a risk in the 1980s is very different to what is a risk today.As outlined there are some recurrent issues such as the recognition of significant harm, taking appropriate action, effective communication and achieving an appropriate balance between supporting families and disruptive intervention to safeguard and resurrect childrens welfare. Nevertheless child protection has been around for a number of years and indicates that there is a correlation between legislation, society and the construct of childhood which continually mirrors each other.