How to reduce the serial removal of children from mothers
in the UK?
A contextual, ethical and policy critique of The ‘Pause’ Project
Grace Brennan Student ID: 11246758
Programme: MSc Sociology: Gender, Sexuality and Society 1st Supervisor: Marie-Louise Janssen
2nd Supervisor: Patrick Brown Date of Submission: 10th July 2017
Acknowledgements
I would first like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Marie-Louise Janssen. I feel very fortunate to have worked with her throughout this research. From the early stages her
enthusiasm and interest in my topic helped to motivate my research process and her continued advice and encouragement has been invaluable.
I would also like to express my profound gratitude to my parents, who have supported me in all of my endeavours and cultivated my desire to learn and engage with the
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction and Research Question 4
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
2.1 Idealized Motherhood and Deviant Discourses 8
2.2 Trauma, Loss and Grief 10
2.3 Systems Theory and The Integrated Model 12
2.4 The Politics of Reproduction 14
2.5 Governmentality 17
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Research Methods 19
3.2 Methods for Data Analysis 22
3.3 Operationalization of Key Concepts 24
Chapter 4: The Context behind Repeat Removals and The Evolution of ‘Pause’
4.1 The Phenomenon of Repeat Removals 26
4.2 The Demographics of this Population of Women 28
4.3 The Missing Statutory Services 31
4.4 Economic Imperatives 32
4.5 Current Innovative Practice 33
4.6 The Evolution of ‘Pause’ 34
4.7 The Government’s Involvement 38
Chapter 5: The ‘Pause’ Project’s Policy Approach
5.1 The Aims of ‘Pause’ and The Recruitment Process 43
5.2 The Conditional Use of LARC 46
5.3 The Integrated Model 53
Chapter 6: Conclusion 63
1. Introduction
Becky’s Story:
“Over just four and a half years, Becky had four babies and all were removed permanently from her care within days of their birth. The eldest is now five years old and the youngest just 18 months. Including another son who is eight years old and a daughter, now 18, the 34-year-old has lost six children to the care system.
Becky had a severely traumatic childhood, making her easy prey for an older man who forced her to be almost continuously pregnant for the length of their relationship, subjecting her to a campaign of violence so relentless that he twice went to prison and was reported to the police 46 times. The children were taken into care because of violence in their home.
‘When you have a family like mine that don’t care about you, you are desperate for love’ Becky says. ‘This man dominated me and the more kids I had taken away, the stronger my bond to him became. Having said that, if I could have kept my babies inside me forever and not given birth to them, I would have done it. Pregnancy for me was just coming closer to the moment when social services would take my baby away from me.’”
(Hill, 2014)
Becky’s story serves as an anecdotal introduction to the topic of this research. She is a vulnerable woman with a history of trauma and abuse who is finding herself trapped in cycle of repeated removals of her children into the UK care system.
Becky’s story is not unique; to help elucidate the scale of this issue it is useful to draw on the work of Professor of social work, Karen Broadhurst, from The University of Lancaster. Broadhurst’s work has been fundamental in projecting this issue into scientific and academic discourses. Broadhurst et al.’s population profiling study (2015) offered the first comprehensive picture of the scale of women’s repeat involvement in public law proceedings in England. Estimating that between 2007 and 2013, 22,790 babies were removed from 7,143 women: an average of over three children for each mother (Broadhurst et al., 2015, p. 2248). Broadhurst’s research
evidenced for the first time, a sizeable population of women in England “who experience repeat court-ordered removal of children” (Broadhurst et al., 2015, 2242).
The extent of this issue raises a number of social, moral and political concerns. Firstly, until recently, very little was known about the size and demographics of this population, in addition to this, there has been “a marked absence of discussion within mainstream policy arenas” (Broadhurst and Mason, 2013, p. 291) regarding how this issue might be remedied, indicating that this population of women have largely been neglected. Secondly we must consider the “pressing moral concerns” (Broadhurst and Mason, 2013, p. 291) that this issue presents, in the sense that women who are repeatedly finding themselves before the family courts and losing their children to care or permanent adoption experience the traumatic repercussions of loss and grief. It is however not only the mothers who suffer through this process: fathers, siblings and extended family networks all endure the effects of this cycle. As well as the moral and humanitarian concerns relating to this issue, there is also an argument to address this phenomenon from an economic perspective. Broadhurst and Mason argue that, “given the economic imperatives that organise welfare policy, the absence of debate about successive pregnancies is surprising, as the cost of care and adoption proceedings alone ought to warrant concern” (Broadhurst and Mason, 2013, p. 291). What Broadhurst and Mason’s research calls for is a “concerted prevention agenda” (Broadhurst and Mason, 2013, p. 291) that seeks to address and remedy the issue of repeat removals.
Although Broadhurst and Mason’s plea for a national prevention agenda has yet to be answered, there are initiatives emerging across the United Kingdom that are attempting to address the issue of repeat removals. The largest and most influential of which is the ‘Pause’ project, the case study for this research. The ‘Pause’ project proposes a policy and practice response that aims to “break this cycle and give women the opportunity to develop new skills and responses that can help them create a more positive future” (“Pause: Creating Space for Change”, n.d.). The aim of this study is to investigate the context, policy and ethics behind the ‘Pause’ project initiative. Exploring how it emerged, what the government’s relationship to it is, how its proposed policies aims to tackle the issue at hand and what the benefits and dilemmas of this approach might be. Therefore, the overarching research question will be:
What is the context behind the evolution of the ‘Pause’ project (UK) and what are the ethical and policy critiques of their approach to remedy the issue of repeat removals?
In order to respond to this research question it is necessary to apply a series of operational sub-questions that will contribute to the development of the argument. These include:
1. What is the UK context behind the issue of repeat removals? 2. How has the ‘Pause’ project evolved over time?
3. What is the government’s relationship to the organisation ‘Pause’?
4. What are the policies presented by the ‘Pause’ project and what are the practical and ethical critiques of their approach?
The structural design of this study begins with an introduction to the theoretical framework in chapter 2, which provides the academic foundations for this research. Concepts that will be introduced include: systems theory and the integrated model; idealized motherhood and deviant discourses; trauma, loss and grief; the politics of reproduction and governmentality. Each of these concepts will serve as a tool to better understand the context behind the issue of repeat removals, as well as providing a lens through which to analyse the policy discourses of ‘Pause’. Chapter three will outline the methodology employed during this research, including how the data was sampled and collected, as well as explaining how directed content analysis and policy discourse analysis will be applied as methods to analyse the data. Subsequent to the methodology, chapter four of this study will continue by offering a detailed presentation of the related context to this topic, thus answering sub-question one. Chapter four will then continue by documenting how the ‘Pause’ project was first conceptualised and evolved, answering sub-question two. Continuing from this, chapter four will conclude with an examination of the government’s relationship to ‘Pause’, therefore answering sub-question three. Chapter five is concerned with presenting and analysing some of the main policy discourses of ‘Pause’, beginning with an examination of the aims of the project and its process for recruitment, moving on to consider the conditional use of LARC in the programme and finishing with an exploration of ‘Pause’s’ integrated model of practice. An incorporation of the collected data, the theoretical framework and a novel approach to policy analysis will enable a practical and ethical critique of ‘Pause’s’ policies, consequently answering sub-question four. The concluding chapter will return to the main research question,
offer new insights into the policy approach of ‘Pause’ and will present the possibilities of an alternative course of action to respond to the issue of repeat removals.
2. Theoretical Framework
The following chapter endeavours to present the range of theories that will be applied throughout and guide the analysis in this study. The primary objective is to introduce the concepts of idealized motherhood and related deviancy discourses, for it is these concepts that expose prevailing gendered notions of motherhood and the consequences for women who do not meet the dominant societal expectations. Here providing context to the challenges faced by this population of women who are repeatedly losing their children to care, as well as offering insight into the conceptual logics that underpin the ‘Pause’ project’s policy agenda. Leading on from this, the psychological theories of trauma, loss and grief will be examined with the intention to build upon the understanding of circumstantial factors at play in the lives of these women, thus presenting what needs to be taken into consideration when attempting to intervene to ‘break’ this cycle of repeat removals.
Succeeding this, the concepts of systems theory and the integrated model will be explored, for it is these theories that serve as the theoretical framework that The ‘Pause’ project bases its interventions on. The following theory is the politics of reproduction, a crucial theory for this study as the use of LARC (Long Acting Reversible Contraception) is a conditional requirement to qualify as a client of the ‘Pause’ project. Finally, this chapter will introduce Foucault’s concept of governmentality. This theory will help to elucidate the alliance formed between ‘Pause’ and the UK government and what this suggests about how the project is seen to fulfil certain governmental ambitions through acting on individuals‘ behaviours.
2.1 Idealizsed Motherhood and Deviant Discourses
Sociologist Teresa Arendell explores the notion of motherhood and its related ideologies in her text, ‘Conceiving and Investigating Motherhood: The Decade’s Scholarship’ (2000). Arendell expresses that within scholarly work “definitions of mothering share a theme: the social practices of nurturing and caring for dependent children” (Arendell, 2000, p. 1192). Arendell conceives of representations of mothering as being “multifaceted and complex” as well as being “symbolically laden” (Arendell, 2000, p. 1192). As mothering is predominantly associated as a task
rendered by women, it is often “entwined with notions of femininity and women’s gender identity is reinforced by mothering” (Arendell, 2000, p. 1192). Arendell continues with this concept of identity to argue that, since the 19th Century, mothering “has presumed to be a primary identity for most adult women” (Arendell, 2000, p. 1192). It is important to consider here that not all women mother and that mothering and care giving is not a task solely carried out by women, it is therefore significant that womanhood and motherhood are often treated as “synonymous identities and categories of experience” (Arendell, 2000, p. 1192).
The link between motherhood and womanhood brings with it, a pressure for women to adhere to pervasive ideological notions of ideal motherhood. Professors of social work, Karen Broadhurst and Clare Mason ruminate over normative discourses of motherhood in their text, ‘Maternal outcasts: raising the profile of women who are vulnerable to successive, compulsory removals of their children – a plea for preventative action’ (2013). Broadhurst and Mason argue that although discourses relating to motherhood have been subject to significant change in more recent history, perceptions of what it means to be a ‘good mother’ “endures through idealized depictions in parenting guidance, the popular press and as reinforced through women’s own informal networks” (Broadhurst and Mason, 2013, p, 295). Drawing on the work of Berry (1993) and Ruddick (1994) reference is made to the enduring images of ‘Madonna and her child’ claiming that this epitomizes “authentic womanhood and are implied in femininity” (Broadhurst and Mason, 2013, p. 295). The investigation of motherhood ideology is further examined within the feminist constructionist approach. Arendell argues that the prevailing ideology in North America (similarities of which can be drawn to the UK context) is described as
intensive mothering. This form of motherhood is, exclusive, wholly child-centred,
emotionally involving and time consuming (Hays, 1996). Within this ideology, the mother is portrayed as being devoted to the care of others and “not a subject with her own needs and interests” (Bassin et al., 1994, p. 2). If a woman demonstrates these attributes, “she is the good mother” (Arendell, 2000, p. 1194).
Arendell reflects that despite “cultural contradictions and diverse arrangements and practices” (Arendell, 2000, p. 1195) the intensive mothering ideology remains. What results from this is an emergence of a variety of deviancy discourses, aimed at women who do not adhere to the pervasive cultural and historical ideology of intensive motherhood. Arendell articulates that these discourses are
targeted, “albeit differentially, at mothers who do not conform to the script of full-time motherhood in the context of marriage” she continues to explain that “single mothers, welfare mothers, minority mothers, immigrant mothers, and lesbian mothers – often overlapping but not mutually exclusive categories – are subjects of deviancy discourses of mothering” (Arendell, 2000, p. 1195).
Broadhurst and Mason corroborate Arendell’s argument surrounding deviancy discourses. They too, note the pressures on women to meet the societal demands of ideal motherhood and argue that policy makers give “insufficient regard to the context of care-giving relationships, particularly where mothering takes place in conditions of violence or socio-economic disadvantage” (Broadhurst and Mason, 2013, p. 295). The deviancy discourse that Broadhurst and Mason focuses on, is having a child removed by the state; they argue that within the context of idealized motherhood, this can be “the greatest challenge to a mother’s self-identity and moral character” (Broadhurst and Mason, 2013, p. 295; Slembrouck and Hall, 2003). Feminist literature highlights that those who do not meet the demands of “idealized Western middle-class mothering norms, can feel that they are policed and vilified by public services” as well as being “subject to serious moral disapprobation” (Broadhurst and Mason, 2013, p. 295).
An awareness of the concepts of idealized motherhood and deviant discourses helps to contextualize an aspect of what women who experience repeat removals encounter. The consequence of ‘failing’ at motherhood not only stigmatizes them in the eyes of society but can also serve to challenge their perceptions of their own identities. Here we can begin to identify one of the philosophies that underpins The ‘Pause’ Project’s agenda, to intervene with a population of women who have been deemed unsuccessful as mothers and who psychologically suffer the repercussions.
2.2 Trauma, loss and grief
Building on the notion of deviant discourses relating to motherhood, the concepts of trauma, loss and grief will provide a deeper understanding of the psychological factors present for a large majority women who are trapped in the cycle of repeat removals.
Straussner and Calnan describe trauma as psychologically “referring to an experience that is emotionally painful, distressing or shocking, and one that has long-term negative mental and physical (including neurological) consequence.” (Straussner
and Calnan, 2014, p. 323). The occurrence of a traumatic event can alter an individual’s psychological capacity to cope. Dr. Sheena Webb, a Consultant Clinical Psychologist and Service Manager at the Family Drug and Alcohol Court and Tom Borro, a senior social work practitioner, consider the prevalence of trauma in people who are involved in care proceedings and how this comes to affect their capacity to make ‘good choices’, in their online article ‘FDAC- a trauma-informed service’ (2017). Webb and Borro reflect on the fact that a majority of people involved in care proceedings have “experienced repeat trauma from an early age, whether that be the horror of sexual of physical abuse, or the terror of seeing domestic abuse or growing up with no safe adult to seek comfort from” (Webb and Borro, 2017). Calling again of the work of Straussner and Calnan, evidence they present suggests that encountering trauma in early life, affects the brain development, “especially the development of right hemispheric brain functions, which include among other things, regulation of mood and social adjustment” (Straussner and Calnan, 2014, p. 325). A consequence of this lack of development can mean, according to Webb and Borro, that people lack the “the psychological building blocks” (Webb and Borro, 2017) needed to make good choices. This argument is supported by the work of psychiatrist Judith Herman, who contends that trauma can lead to the continuous flooding of the mind with fear, the individual is then concerned with efforts to shut this down and is consequently restricted in their access to the mental resources they need to make good choices (Herman, 1997). If left unaddressed, the life cycle of complex trauma often comes to repeat itself. The existence of complex trauma continues to affect an individual’s capacity to make ‘good choices’ throughout all stages of their lives.
In addition to the potential existence childhood trauma, parents who experience the loss of a child through removal are likely to suffer with the psychological impacts of the loss. As previously outlined, if a mother has a child removed from their care, she is subject to the societal stigmatization associated with a failed attempt at motherhood. The repercussions of this are that it can impact the way a mother is able to process and manage the grief that comes with losing a child.
The work of Kenneth Doka, a Professor of Gerontology, seeks to explore the notion of what he terms, ‘disenfranchised grief’ (Doka, 1989). Doka argues that this can occur when “a person experiences a sense of loss but does not have a socially recognized right, role or capacity to grieve” (Doka, 1989, p. 3). This concept is particularly relevant to the plight faced by birth mothers who are stigmatized by
society for their failed attempt at motherhood, thus they are faced with the challenge of processing a bereavement, whilst also imbued with feelings of shame and guilt. The grief and loss felt by these mothers is not only stigmatized, it can also contribute to complications in decision-making when it comes to reproductive choices. The loss of a child may trigger deterioration in functioning and/ or result in a drive to remedy this by attempting to replace the child, often soon after. It is a common occurrence that following the removal of a child mothers can “seek solace in a further pregnancy, only to then have that infant subsequently removed” (Broadhurst and Mason, 2013, p. 293). This notion of ‘replacement child syndrome’ has been documented in studies relating to perinatal loss and child death, these studies confirm that subsequent pregnancy is a way of coping (Cain & Cain, 1964; Davis, Stewart & Harmon, 1989; Pozanski, 1972). Evidence from stillbirth research gathered by Hughes at al., (1999) indicates that 50% of mothers who experience a stillbirth become pregnant within twelve months. What is also significant about ‘replacement child syndrome’ is that pregnancy following a stillbirth has been found to be a trigger for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), with this likelihood being exacerbated for those with perceived lower social support at the time of the loss (Turton, 2001).
This examination of trauma reveals the extent to which it is present, in various ways, for women repeatedly involved in care proceedings. The evidence suggests that it is likely that this population of women have suffered trauma growing up, which can invariably affect their capacity for decision-making. Not only this, there is the additional consideration of the trauma experienced from losing a child and being restricted in their ability to process and manage this grief. What is affirmed here is the necessity for the presence of trauma to be a focus when considering appropriate methods for intervention for women who experience repeat removals.
2.3 Systems Theory and the Integrated Model
The adoption of a particular theoretical approach serves as a foundation for developing a practice model within social work. The ‘Pause’ project has based its intervention approach on the concepts introduced by systems theory and from the concept of an integrated Model of practice.
Systems theory has been applied to a vast range of disciplines; one of the most prominent scholars to influence systems theory’s relation to social work is Talcott Parsons. Parsons an economist and sociologist at Harvard University, authored the
text “The Social System” (1951), it was this text that was significant in guiding the intellectual dialogue regarding social systems, towards the systematic determinants of human behaviour.
Parson’s theory is concerned with analysing social systems “within an ‘action’ frame of reference” (C. W. M. Hart, 1954, p. 500). What this action frame of reference is suggesting is that behaviour is believed to take place between people or consists of interaction. This interaction may take place “between ego and physical object, or ego and another actor, or ego and a collectivity (of many alters)” (C. W. M Hart, 1954, p. 500). Thus, from an ecological perspective, the focus of systems theory is on how an individual interacts with their environment. This is a continual transaction and at any given point, human behaviour is influenced by an intersection of multiple interrelated systems. All systems are made up are interrelated parts which come to constitute a whole and each subsystem impacts all other parts and the whole system.
The concepts presented within systems theory have come to serve as the theoretical basis for many of the models of integrated practice that can be found within the social work discipline. The integrated model is both a method and a form of practice, it is rooted in understanding of the client’s environment from a holistic perspective, as well as combining a range of theoretical outlooks and approaches to practice and intervention. Traditional social work models have often focused on the individual and the client-practitioner relationship. Roger Evans, a sociologist and social work academic, argues that the client’s problem is defined “in terms of the expressed need of the client, the social worker’s assessment of the problem and the agency function” (Evans, 2008, p. 184). In contemporary reflections on social work practice, this method has come under criticism, due to the fact that the problem is assumed to lie solely with the individual and that it relies on the expertise of the practitioner to identify the area in need of intervention, it is what Kaplan terms, “the law of the instrument” (Kaplan, 1964, p. 23), in that it is an overreliance on a familiar tool. In comparison to this, the integrated model promotes a holistic view of an individual’s environment. Encouraging an understanding of the interactions between micro (individuals and families), meso (neighbourhoods, organizations and groups) and macro (the broader society and communities) levels of organization (Parsons et al., 1988, p. 417) and it advocates for behaviour to be thought about through an awareness of context. The integrated model allows for a “multilevel systems
intervention that links systems for a synthesis of energy aimed at problem resolution or reduction” (Parsons et al., 1988, p. 417).
To draw again on the work of Roger Evans, he argues that, the integrated approach attempts to establish a model and method for practice that goes “beyond existing conceptual models” (Evans, 2004, p. 184). The integrated approach to theory and practice “constitutes a shift from predominantly ‘individualistic’ model to an ‘interactionist’ one” (Evans, 2004, p. 178). The idea of an interactionist model is supported in the work of Parsons, Hernandez and Jorgensen, who argue that one of the benefits of the integrative approach is in the fact that the location of the problem is open, it does not immediately assume that the problem is with the individual, “the problem may also be defined as located in the environment” and furthermore, “the question of where to intervene is open” it is a unique approach in that “the location of the problem and the focus of the intervention needs not always be the same” (Parsons et al., 1988, p. 417). The integrated model encourages the belief that problem-solving approaches must take into account all of the interrelating client systems. Practitioners are therefore encouraged to be flexible in their approach and the range of practice strategies employed, depending on the intervention, include: “differential role-taking intervention, teaching problem-solving models, networking, team building, and mutual aid and self-help” (Parsons et al., 1998, p. 417).
2.4 The Politics of Reproduction
The politics of reproduction is a crucial theoretical underpinning of this study, as a contentious element of the ‘Pause’ project’s policy approach is the conditional use of Long Acting Reversible Contraception (LARC) to be admitted to the programme. It is therefore necessary to present how the issue of reproductive autonomy is viewed within academic discourse.
In 1994, the United Nations held an international conference on Population and Development (ICPD). Carmel Shalev documents that this conference marked “the acceptance of a new paradigm in addressing human reproduction and health” (Shalev, 2000, p. 39). There was a departure from archaic approaches to women’s reproductive capacities that had often been viewed as “an object of population control” (Shalev, 2000, p. 39). Instead, the conference sought to modernize thinking related to women’s reproduction to align with the changing landscape of women’s improved rights, empowerment and movement towards gender equality. As Shalev
expresses: “the new approach focused on women’s empowerment to exercise personal autonomy in relation to their sexual and reproductive health within their social, economic, and political contexts” (Shalev, 2000, p. 40). Chapter VII of The Programme of Action entitled “Reproductive Rights and Reproductive Health” emphasizes the principle of autonomy and asserts that people should be able, “to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so” (United Nations Population Fund, 1994, p. 59). In addition to this, the topic of contraception was discussed. Shalev summarizes the discussion, claiming that; “reproductive choice means the right of women to choose whether or not to reproduce, including the right to choose their preferred method of family planning and contraception” (Shalev, 2000, p. 53). Karen Broadhurst et al., delve deeper into the concept on reproductive autonomy in the text ‘Vulnerable birth mothers and repeat losses of infants to public care: is targeted reproductive health care ethically defensible?’ (2015). As previously outlined, according to a rights-based perspective, women should be afforded the opportunity to decide “if, when and how often” (United Nations Population Fund, 1994, p. 59) to reproduce. With this is mind, “providing access to information about contraceptive technologies, sexual health and family planning is normatively valued across the globe” (Broadhurst et al., 2015, p. 88). However, the provision of reproductive health care services becomes somewhat controversial when it is targeting “specific individuals with the intention of preventing pregnancy” (Broadhurst et al., 2015, p. 89).
Here it is important to recognize within the UK and broader international contexts, what Pamela Cox deems the “sometimes shameful history where the state aimed to limit the reproductive autonomy of socially excluded groups” (Cox, 2012, p. 548). The eugenics movement, which developed in the early part of the 20th century, gave rise to oppressive state interventions, which saw women’s agency curtailed through measures such as institutionalisation and forced sterilization. In more recent history there have been political projects that have “sought to curb reproduction in perceived ‘deviant mothers’ such as those addicted to drugs and alcohol” (Broadhurst et al., 2015, p. 89). Of note, Project prevention, a project based in the US which aims to reduce the number of infants subject to illicit drug use, by financially rewarding women who agree to take contraception or be sterilized.
There is a clear ethical dimension to consider in relation targeted reproductive health care, especially when regarding the mistakes of a not so distant past. There is already a dynamic debate, across a range of disciplines, which seeks to explore how far intervention into reproductive decisions can be justified and how this is balanced against and individual’s right to autonomy.
Emily Jackson, a feminist law theorist specializing in bioethics, argues that the concept of reproductive autonomy is perhaps not so clear-cut. Whilst Jackson recognizes that a disregard for individual reproductive preferences undermines a person’s “ability to control one of the most intimate spheres of their life” (Jackson, 2001, p. 6), what also needs to be considered is that ensuring reproductive autonomy is not always a question of “removing external constraints from an individual’s capacity so that they are freed to follow their preferences” sometimes “the provision of resources and services may be necessary in order to assist people to work out their own priorities and to realize them” (Jackson, 2001, p.8).
This conceptualisation of autonomy is echoed in the thoughts of Broadhurst et al. (2015). This text considers the idea of state intervention regarding matters of reproduction within the context of mothers who are caught up in recurrent care proceedings. Broadhurst et al., acknowledge the concerns surrounding intrusive state intervention, but argue that this needs to be counterbalanced against “state abandonment of a clearly very vulnerable population” (Broadhurst et al., 2015, p. 89). Broadhurst et al., also draw on the idea of provision of resources in arguing that in order for women to exercise their reproductive rights, “it may be necessary to provide enhanced support to ensure equitable access to health care services” (Broadhurst et al., 2015, p. 89). To reference further relevant theorists, the work of Jackson and Day-Slatcher (2009) is also applicable, in that they offer a critique of the neoliberal conception of autonomy in that it is overly individualistic, and contend that “protecting autonomy may not involve simply an absence of state interference, but could require the positive provision of resources” (Jackson and Day-Slatcher, 2009, p.2).
The exploration of these arguments reveals the complex nature of issues relating to reproductive autonomy. This study will seek to examine how the policy presented in the ‘Pause’ project acts to navigate this intricate ethical issue when intervening with women who experience repeat removals of their children into care.
2.5 Governmentality
Michael Foucault’s lecture series, ‘Security, Territory, Population’ (1977-78) is concerned with how ‘population’, as he views it, came to be such an object. In a Foucauldian sense, population refers not only to people but to other phenomena and variables, such as birth rate, mortality rate and marriage statistics (Foucault, 1976). Foucault’s notion of population therefore incorporates the whole field of ‘the social’ (Gordon, 1991) “a phrase which describes the network of social relationships and the site at which political power operates” (Sokhi-Bulley, 2014).
Foucault reflects on the shift of government interest from security over territory, to security over people. This change in thinking, according to Foucault constituted a “mutation in the organization and rationalization of methods of power” and power now “has the population as its target, political economy as its major form of knowledge, and apparatuses of security as its essential technical instrument” (Foucault, 2007, p. 108). Foucault brings all of these elements together in the creation of the neologism: governmentality. Central to the concept of governmentality is the notion that governmental power is now focused on the population, and more specifically it is “the way in which the conduct of a whole of individuals is found implicated, in an ever more marked fashion, in the exercise of sovereign power” (Foucault, 2007, p. 101).
Kim McKee evaluates the notion of governmentality as it pertains to social policy in her text ‘Post-Foucauldian governmentality: What does it offer critical social policy analysis’. Mckee recognizes that governmentality “has been embraced as a valuable perspective for understanding power and rule across diverse fields such as crime; education; housing;; local government and public service reform; social welfare and social work” (McKee, 2009, p. 465-6). McKee traces how the usage of the term governmentality has changed over time, revealing that a more generic usage has now emerged.
Secondary commentators within this field, largely theorizing in the late 1990s have “developed and utilized governmentality to draw attention to the ‘how’ of governing” (McKee, 2009, p. 466). This approach focuses on two main elements, the discursive field described as, “the space in which the problem of government is identified and solutions proposed” and the actual interventionist
practices which manifests in “specific programmes and techniques in which both
individuals and groups are governed according to these aforementioned rationalities” (McKee, 2009, p. 466).
Adopting a governmentality perspective is a valuable method for offering critical insight into policy discourses as it draws attention to how “emergent mentalities of rule are made both practical and technical within organized practices for directing human conduct” not only this, but it illustrates how “the governable subject is discursively constituted and produced through particular strategies, programmes and techniques” (McKee, 2009, p. 468). Governmentality can be viewed as a political project in that it is “a way of both problematizing life and seeking to act upon it” (McKee, 2009, p. 468). Making use of the work of Rose and Miller, we can reflect on this desire to make a connection between what is ‘desirable’ and what can be made ‘possible‘ (Rose and Miller, 1992, p. 181-2). The notion of what is deemed to be desirable is consequently imbued with a moral dimension, for it seeks to presents ‘truths’ “about who we are and or what we should be, whilst assuming that we can indeed direct human conduct towards particular ends” (McKee, 2009, p. 468).
As outlined by McKee (2009), the concept of governmentality is a valuable perspective to evaluate social policy and how it relates to conceptions of power and rule. Therefore, this concept will be applied to The ‘Pause’ Project, considering the government’s endorsement and alliance with the ‘Pause’ initiative and what this reveals about both of their political agendas. As well as considering the ‘Pause’ project proposes to fulfill their political imperative of directing “human conduct towards particular ends” in a effort to improve client’s self-governing capacities.
3. Methodology
This chapter will evidence the methods that were engaged with in order to collect, sample and analyse the data. As well as this, key concepts will be operationalized and the codes used for data analysis will be introduced.
3.1 Research Methods
The research methods employed to collect data involved conducting semi-structured interviews and collating and sampling relevant documents for analysis relating to the organization ‘Pause’.
3.1.1 Recruitment and Interview Participants
The process for recruiting potential participants involved purposive sampling, the reason being that it was imperative that the respondents had an understanding of the topic of repeat removals within the UK context, as well as being familiar with the organization ‘Pause’ and its model of practice. The initial objective was to obtain two sample groups of respondents: those who worked for ‘Pause’ and those who had expertise relating to the topic of repeat removals, but worked outside of the organization.
In attempts to gain access to employees of ‘Pause’ an email was sent to the Head of Practice and Learning at the organization, explaining the topic of this research and citing interest in the possibility of interviewing a selection of employees. However the response was as follows: “as such I am sorry but we will not be able to
give you access to our staff”. In an attempt to overcome this obstacle it was
eventually agreed that the Head of Practice and Learning herself would participate in a telephone interview.
In comparison, efforts to approach and recruit alternative participants who had expertise in the topic of repeat removals were much more successful. After finding a gatekeeper who managed a large team of social workers who deal regularly with the topic of repeat removals, six interview respondents were recruited.
An overview of all of interview respondents is documented below: (All names have been changed)
2. Judith: Team Manager in social work. Part of the FDAC (Family Drug and Alcohol Court) and early FDAC team. Judith has spoken at various events relating to good practice in dealing with the topic of repeat removals.
3. James: Social Worker and Senior Practitioner in the FDAC team. James has published work on the topic of repeat removals and trauma informed practice. 4. Heather: Social Worker and Senior Practitioner in the FDAC team.
5. Julie: Social Worker who has visited two conferences presented by Pause. 6. Lucy: Social worker and practitioner for FDAC
7. Christina: Clinical Psychiatrist. Christina has published work on the topic of repeat removals and trauma informed practice.
3.1.2 Semi-Structured Interviews and Instrument Design
The method employed involved conducting in-depth semi-structured interviews with all seven participants. This technique was selected with the intention of gaining a “detailed insight into the research issue from the perspective of the study participants themselves” (Hennik, Hutter and Bailey, 2011, p. 109). The construction of an interview guide involved the balancing of two, seemingly conflicting objectives: directed focus and flexibility. Directed focus refers to the fact that some of questions within the interview guide were informed by the themes encountered during the theoretical research. It was therefore important that these were discussed, as they were essential to the coding of the data. Consulting the work of Hsieh and Shannon (2005) contributed to an awareness of particular strategies for covering predetermined themes during an interview. The approach of Hsieh and Shannon (2005) suggested using an open-ended question, followed by targeted questions about predetermined categories (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). Despite some of the questions having a directed focus, the interview process also aimed to maintain an element of flexibility, due to the fact that qualitative interviewing “is meant to be flexible and to seek out the world views of research participants” (Bryman, 2012, p. 498). Therefore the interview guide was designed in a manner that allowed “for some flexibility in the asking of questions” (Bryman, 2012, p. 498).
3.1.3 Sampling of Pause Policy Documents
Due to the obstacles faced in recruiting employees from ‘Pause’ to engage in interviews, it was essential that the documents collated relating to ‘Pause’ offered a
comprehensive picture of their policy aims and discourses. The way in which the texts were therefore selected was focused on developing an awareness of how ‘Pause’s’ policies were disseminated across a variety of platforms. These included:
• ‘Pause’s’ official information brochure (The Pause Project Brochure, 2017) • ‘Pause’s’ website homepage (“Pause: Creating Space for Change”, n.d.) • ‘Pause’s’ presentation of the results from their pilot project found on their
website (The Pause Project, “Hackney Phase One”, n.d.)
• ‘Pause’s’ description of the integrated model found on their website (The Pause Project, “About the Model”, n.d.)
• A BBC Radio 4 Interview with Sophie Humphreys, The Cofounder of ‘Pause’ (Humphreys, 2016)
• The Department for Education’s ‘Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme’ (Department for Education, 2016) which is the government initiative that awarded funding to ‘Pause’
In addition to this, the ‘Pause’ project held a national launch conference in 2015, where authoritative figures within the organization delivered speeches relating to the policies of ‘Pause’. After listening to the whole conference, which is published on YouTube (Pause, 2015), the most relevant speeches were selected and then transcribed ready for textual analysis, these include:
• Sophie Humphreys’ (the cofounder of ‘Pause’) speech in which she describes the origins of Pause and the concepts behind their integrated model
• MP Edward Timpson’s keynote speech, which details the government’s support of ‘Pause’. Edward Timpson served as the Minister of State for Vulnerable Children and Families from July 2016 to June 2017.
• Dr. Gwen Adshead’s, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, presentation which offers insight into the demographics of this population of women
These texts were selected over a two-year time period (2015-2017) offering insight into how ‘Pause’s’ policies were first imagined and presented at the organization’s launch in 2015, and how these policies have continued to be presented across other platforms up until present day.
3.2 Methods for Data Analysis
This research will synthesize two qualitative approaches to textual analysis, combining directed content analysis with a policy discourse analysis. When utilized simultaneously these approaches serve to compliment each other and help to facilitate a more comprehensive analysis of the themes relating to repeat removals, the policy discourses within the organization ‘Pause’ and the critiques that emerge on a practical and ethical level.
3.2.1 Directed Content Analysis
According to Downe-Wamboldt, the goal of content analysis is “to provide knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon under study” (Downe-Wamboldt, 1992, p. 314). There are a variety of ways content analysis can be applied to textual data, for the purposes of this study a directed content analysis approach will be utilized. The benefits of directed content analysis are that is it guided by a more structured process than in a conventional approach (Hickey and Kipping, 1996). The researcher is able to draw on existing theory and research in order to identify key concepts as initial coding categories (Potter and Levine-Donnerstein, 1999). This process is directly applicable to the methods employed in this research, using the theoretical framework as a basis for identifying themes to aid in the construction of relevant codes for data analysis. The directed approach is then able to serve its purpose in either validating, challenging or extending conceptually these theories (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005).
It is important to recognize and reflect on the potential limitations of the directed content analysis approach. Although prior research and awareness of theory facilitates the researcher to approach their data in an informed manner, it can lead to the existence of a strong bias (Hseih and Shannon, 2005). According to Hseih and Shannon, the researcher, “might be more likely to find evidence that is supportive rather than non-supportive of the theory” (Hseih and Shannon, 2005, p. 1283). With this in mind, the analysis has been conducted with an awareness of potential bias and aims to present data, in combination with the theory, through a balanced perspective.
3.2.2 Policy Discourse Analysis
To conduct the analysis of the policy discourses relating to the organization ‘Pause’ I will be utilizing elements of the novel methodological approach to policy analysis,
constructed by professor of politics, Carol Bacchi, and presented in her text,
‘Analysing Policy: What’s the problem represented to be?’ (2009).
Conventional forms of policy analysis have traditionally focused on what can be termed the ‘problem solving’ paradigm (Bacchi, 2009), this approach has long been favoured in political and intellectual arenas. Analysing policy through this paradigm is based on the perception that there is an existing ‘problem’ and that through the construction of appropriate policy programs, or courses of action, this problem can be ‘fixed’. Carol Bacchi, offers a novel challenge to this existing paradigm and presents a unique alternative methodology for analysing policy. Before outlining the methodological framework suggested by Bacchi, it is useful to explore the reasoning behind the formulation of this counter-discourse for policy analysis. Bacchi’s principle concern regarding the existing ‘problem solving’ paradigm is that this method does not take into account the process of problematisation. Here we must return to the notion that policies claim to ‘fix’ things. What this assumes is the, “existence of a ‘problem’ that needs ‘fixing’” (Bachhi, 2009, p. xi). Bacchi’s novel approach encourages a form of policy analysis that does not accept the ‘problem’ as a foregone category, but seeks to dissect the process in which social issues are problematized, to ask the question: how are they thought about as problems?
The construction of policy discourse is generated by a presupposed notion of what needs to change, the problem itself has traditionally been viewed as exogenous – existing outside the policy making process (Bacchi, 2009). Bacchi’s approach, however, argues that the ‘problems’ themselves are endogenous – created within the policy-making process. In effect, “policies give shape to ‘problems’ they do not
address them” (Bacchi, 2009, p. x). What this calls for is form of policy analysis
where the attention is redirected, “away from the assumed ‘problems’ to the shape and character of ‘problematisations’” (Bacchi, 2009, p. xi).
This distinctive method of policy analysis is designed with the intention to facilitate a more acute understanding of the meaning-making process that takes place in policy construction. Drawing on the work of Shore and Wright (1997) it is essential to acknowledge the cultural dimensions imbued within policy discourse. For all forms of policy are constructed and enacted within specific cultural, historical and social contexts. In this sense, as articulated by Bacchi, “it is appropriate to think about policy in anthropological terms, as a cultural product” (Bacchi, 2009, p.ix). By
adopting this approach, the analyst is able to move towards a more refined understanding of the issue at hand. Not only this, but it sheds light on how the issue itself is problematized by those attempting to address it. This task requires an objective scrutiny, an unpicking of assumptions and possible silences in an attempt to begin to “understand policy better than its authors” (Beilharz, 1987, p. 393).
Bacchi outlines a six-stage process, of interrelated questions, that can be employed in order to better understand how problems are constructed within policy; Bacchi terms this the WPR (what’s the problem represented to be) approach. The approach can be summarized as follows:
1. What's the problem represented to be in a specific policy?
2. What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the 'problem'?
3. How has this representation of the problem come about?
4. What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the 'problem' be thought about differently?
5. What effects are produced by this representation of the 'problem'?
6. How/where has this representation of the 'problem' been produced, disseminated and defended? How could it be questioned, disrupted and replaced?
(Bacchi, 2009, p. 4) This research is likely to touch upon all of the elements presented in Bacchi’s WPR approach. However, in the deconstruction of ‘Pause’s’ policy discourses and in the analysis of interview data, there will be a directed focus to specific elements of Bacchi’s proposed methodology. In particular: the presuppositions or assumptions that underlie the particular representation of the issue of repeat removals in the context of Pause; what is left unproblematic in this problem representation; where the silences lie and how the problem can be thought about differently through questioning and disruption.
3.3 Operationalization of Key Concepts
In attempts to evaluate how the ‘Pause’ project addresses the issue of repeat removals and the critiques that arise from this approach, various concepts will need to be
operationalized. For this to be achieved the data will be analysed through the construction of codes which were designed in connection to the key concepts outlined in the theoretical framework. The codes applied to the interview data and policy documents included:
• The relationship between ‘Pause’ and the government • The use of LARC in the programme
• Issues relating to identity and motherhood
• The Implementation of the Integrated Model with a focus on: 1. Elements relating to lifestyle change 2. How trauma, loss and grief is dealt with
In addition to this, codes were also applied based on the method of policy analysis presented by Carol Bacchi (2009), including:
• What is assumed in this representation of the problem? • Where are the silences?
• How might this problem be thought about differently?
The implementation of these codes will allow for an in depth analysis of the data through the lens of the proposed theories: idealized motherhood and deviant discourses; trauma, loss and grief; the politics of reproduction; systems theory and the integrated model and the concept of governmentality. Thus contributing towards an understanding of how the ‘Pause’ project conceptualises the issue of repeat removal and what policies it employs to remedy this. As well as this, offering a unique approach to policy analysis that seeks to highlight how the underlying assumptions and silences within a particular policy discourse might encourage the possibility of conceptualising this issue from a different perspective.
4. The Context behind Repeat Removals and The Evolution of ‘Pause’
There are three principle objectives within this contextual chapter. Firstly, this chapter aims to provide an answer to the preliminary research sub-question: What is the UK context behind the issue of repeat removals? In order to achieve this the discussion begins with an analysis of current research and data which highlights the prominence of this issue in the UK. Following this there will be a consideration of the demographics relating to this population of women losing successive infants to care. The chapter will then move on to examine the lack of statutory support services currently available in the UK for parents who have lost their children to the care system. In addition to this, the chapter includes a brief analysis of the economic imperative to address this issue and introduces some of the recent practice models that are at work in the UK.
The second objective of this chapter is to provide an introduction to the organisation ‘Pause’ and to answer the second sub-question: How has the ‘Pause’ project evolved over time? Considering how the pattern of repeat removals was first recognised by the founders of the organisation and how they designed and implement a pilot programme to test the effectiveness of their model.
The third objective of this chapter is to consider how the ‘Pause’ project attracted funding from the government, with an exploration into their alliance through employing the concept of governmentality. Therefore answering sub-question three: What is the government’s relationship to the organisation ‘Pause’?.
4.1 The Phenomenon of Repeat Removals
The most recent release of statistics, presented by the Department for Education, reveals that there were 70,440 looked after children in England in the year ending 31 March 2016 (Department for Education, September 2016). The data evidences that the number of looked after children in England has continued to rise and “has increased steadily over the last eight years” (Department for Education, September 2016). A child who is being looked after by their local authority is sometimes also referred to as a child in care. These children might be living: with foster parents, at home with their parents under the supervision of social services, in residential children’s homes or in other residential settings like schools or secure units. They might have been placed in care voluntarily by parents struggling to cope. Or,
children’s services may have intervened because a child was at significant risk of harm (NSPCC, n.d.).
There is an emerging field critical enquiry, which is attempting to investigate the steadily increasing figures of looked after children in the UK. What has materialized is the existence of what is being referred to as a ‘hidden population’ (Broadhurst, 2015) of women “who appear and reappear before the family court and lose successive infants and children to out-of-home care or adoption” (Broadhurst et al., 2015, p. 2242). The phenomenon has become known as repeat, or, recurrent removals. The uncovering of this trend has given rise to a growing international concern regarding this percentage of birth mothers for whom “history repeats itself” (Broadhurst et al., 2015, p. 2242). Professor of social work, Karen Broadhurst, has conducted the most significant piece of research to date on this topic, entitled ‘Connecting Events in Time to Identify a Hidden Population: Birth Mothers and Their Children in Recurrent Care Proceedings in England’ (2015).
Broadhurst’s paper begins by highlighting that, “the serial removal of infants and children from the same birth mother has been reported in the USA (Grant et al., 2014; Larrieu et al., 2008; Ryan et al., 2008), in Australia (Taplin and Mattick, 2014), and in England (Cox, 2012; Broadhurst et al., 2014)” (Broadhurst et al., 2015, p. 2242). Despite the international documentation of this phenomenon there has been, according to Broadhurst, “a dearth of research to inform a prevention agenda” (Broadhurst et al., 2015, p. 2242).
Compulsory removal of a child into the care system is a traumatic process for all involved: the child, the birth mother, the father, potential siblings and for the extended family network. On this note, according to Broadhurst, the feelings of loss and grief that come with the removal of a child through state intervention are only “magnified where compulsory removals are repeated” (Broadhurst et al., 2015, p. 2242). With this in mind, it is a somewhat surprising reality that “so little is known about this population of women as an international trend” (Broadhurst et al., 2015, p. 2242).
Broadhurst’s study therefore, begins the task of attempting to map the scale of this problem within the UK context. The research involved a mixed-method population profiling study, funded by the Nuffield foundation, and it provides the first comprehensive data set that reveals the scale of women’s repeat involvement in public law proceedings in England. What the data revealed was a sizeable national
estimate of 7143 birth mothers who between 2007 and 2013 appeared and reappeared before the courts; in nearly all cases their children were lost to public care or adoption (Broadhurst et al., 2015). Presented another way, there were 13,248 babies in the United Kingdom who were subject to care proceedings at birth or soon after between 2007 and 2013, further analysis of the data indicates that 50% of these babies involved in care proceedings were linked to repeat removals (Broadhurst et al., 2015). Broadhurst’s study maps further trends for this population of birth mothers and states that for women who have already been subject to a court ordered removal of a child, “based on yearly estimates of probability we can expect (at least) 24% to return to court” and this estimate increases “to almost one in every three for women aged between sixteen and nineteen” (Broadhurst et al., 2015, p. 2255). In addition to this, the data also reveals that a majority of clients, “return within a short space of time (median interval is seventeen months)” (Broadhurst et al., 2015, p. 2255). What this data presents is a concerning number of women, who are seemingly trapped in the cycle of repeat court ordered removal of their children into care, who are clearly in need of services to support them.
4.2 The Demographics of this Population of Women
It is first necessary to attempt to understand, within the context of the current discussions available, who this population of women are? It is important to note that this is not an attempt to homogenize this population of women. As pointed out by Dr. Gwen Adshead at ‘Pause’s’ national launch conference (Pause, 2015), “I am keen to
get away from the idea that there’s a group of people out there, sort of silo”.
However, it is critical to understand that there are often complex and multifaceted presenting issues that can contribute to why these women are finding themselves trapped in cycle of pregnancy and subsequent removal of their children. In order to comprehend this better it is beneficial to hear a personal account from someone who has been through the experience of having multiple children removed.
This is the story of Jemma (not her real name), a woman now in her early thirties from Suffolk, who has lost two sons to permanent adoption and has had two terminations:
I was first involved with social services when I was 18 months old. There was a lot of violence around in my family. I became a disruptive child. I put myself
in care when I was 14 so that I could get away. I lived in a children’s home and got into cannabis there. By 15, I was into heroin. After I left the children’s home I was involved with drug dealers and had quite a few violent partners. I became a prostitute because I was rubbish at stealing. My life was a nightmare – never enough cash, always scrimping, severely depressed.
Jemma continues to explain that the year 2006 was particularly significant for her:
I met a new partner and I got pregnant. Around the same time my mum was diagnosed with quite a serious illness. I felt it was a really important time for me to change, to take responsibility for stuff. I didn’t tell anyone outside the family that I was pregnant until I was six months. I didn’t want social services involved. I thought ‘I’m Jemma, I’m hard, I’ll do it myself, like my mum did’. But I was still using drugs. I couldn’t be there for myself, let alone my baby. My son was born. It was great at first but even then I was sneaking out of the hospital to take drugs. And then I lost five girls I knew from the streets – murdered by [the Ipswich serial killer] Steve Wright. Everything fell apart. My son was taken off me.
(Note. This is Jemma’s personal story, which she told at a multi-agency networking event organized by South Suffolk Pre-Birth Working Group in November 2011, in Cox, 2012, p. 542)
Following this traumatic period, Jemma ‘moved away, went through rehab, got clean’ (Cox, 2012, p. 543). However after returning to Suffolk she reconnected with old networks and started using drugs again. She then met a new partner and became pregnant in 2009, Jemma explains ‘I just didn’t think I could get pregnant while I was
on drugs’ (Cox, 2012, p. 543). Jemma was prescribed methadone and supported by a
specialist midwifery team throughout this second pregnancy. However, following the birth of her son she returned to using hard drugs and he too was removed from her. Women who have had numerous dealings with the child protection system are most often carrying with them issues from their own difficult childhoods; these issues are then brought with them into parenthood (Broadhurst and Mason, 2013). The negative experiences of these women’s childhoods can include, amongst other factors: interpersonal physical and sexual violations; abandonment or rejection and most often this is alongside socio-economic deprivation (Apfel and Handel, 1993, Neil et al., 2010). A majority of these factors can be seen in the story of Jemma.
Whilst it is possible to obtain anecdotal evidence of women’s experiences who have been involved in repeat care proceedings, the 2011 Family Justice Review Final report recognizes that there are “data gaps” particularly in regards to “demographic
data on families involved in the family justice system.” (Department for Education, 2011, p. 205). In response to the lack of definitive data that considers the demographic of women involved in repeat removals, the ‘Pause’ project made this a focus of their feasibility study, commissioned in 2011. Focusing on 49 women within the London borough of Hackney, the research sought to document, amongst other things, the prevalence of complex problems and circumstances. The data reveals that out of the 49 service users each woman is likely to have experienced one or more of the following:
• 98% had a drug and alcohol addiction;
• 71% were involved in a domestically violent relationship; • 51% were engaging in street sex work;
• 49% had a history of being in the care system themselves; • 47% suffer with chronic mental health issues;
• 35% have criminal proceedings against them; • 14% have learning difficulties;
• 8% are diagnosed with a personality disorder.
(The Pause Project, “Hackney Phase 1”, n.d.)
This data reveals the multitude of factors that are influencing the lives of these women. Although there is not yet a comprehensive nation-wide profiling study of these women, this data, is corroborated by anecdotal evidence presented by professionals with extensive experience of this issue. What needs to be understood at this point is the way in which these presenting social issues relate to the repeat removal of children from this population of birth mothers. As articulated by the Cofounder of ‘Pause’, Sophie Humphreys: “We must remember that these are
probably not the cause as to why their children are removed, these are the symptoms”. What these ‘symptoms’ do reveal is the extent and range of issues that a
significant percentage of these women have to navigate on a daily basis. All of which will require attention and support when aiming to break the cycle of pregnancy and subsequent removal that these women are trapped in.
4.3 The Missing Statutory Services
Currently in the UK, “there is no statutory mandate regarding the provision of tailored rehabilitative support to parents following child removal” (Broadhurst et al., 2015, p. 2256). As the role of child protection practitioners is orientated towards the needs of the child, once this child is removed into the care of the local authority, so too is the support. The 2002 Adoption and Children Act sought to modernize the laws surrounding adoption in order to reflect the changing social context of contemporary United Kingdom. An aspect of this, sought to draw attention to the previously neglected needs of the birth parents; the act specified that a post-adoption service would help to support birth parents to process their grief. The successes of this act have however been somewhat limited. Firstly, in practice, the service itself was minimal and it did not mandate services to address birth mothers’ rehabilitative needs (Broadhurst and Mason, 2013). Secondly, the research conducted by Elsbeth Neil et al. (2010), which sought to analyse how these services were being using by birth parents, documented that almost half the target population were not using these services at all.
Broadhurst and Mason’s (2013) findings from a pilot study into mothers subject to repeat losses, argue that: “for birth mothers subject to successive removals of children, multiple problems of homelessness, mental health and mental capacity in particular, undermined help-seeking” (Broadhurst and Mason, 2013, p. 292). In summary, although the 2002 Adoption and Children Act endeavoured to bring the needs of birth parents into focus, the services put in place were not a requirement nor were they comprehensive in addressing the rehabilitation of birth mothers. In addition to this, a variety of complex needs facing this population of birth mothers often means that services are not sought out. Furthermore, it is important to note that birth parents may be less likely to seek out help when considering the potentially fractured relationship between them and the family court system, following the compulsory removal of their child.
At present, although court proceedings often recognise the need for rehabilitative support to parents following removal of a child, there are currently insufficient services to provide this. Broadhurst argues that, “the family justice system operates according to an implicit expectation of ‘natural recovery’” (Broadhurst et al., 2015, p. 2256). This can be understood as a process whereby recovery is not achieved through any form of treatment, but instead there is an expectation that people might
