Booker’s thesis is that the child protection system in
Britain is ‘dysfunctional’. He says that there are “…scores of cases of children
seized from their parents for what appear to be quite absurd reasons”. But when
we read the detail we are faced with accounts which seem to turn very much on
the author’s own assessment of what has happened, rather than on independent empirical
fact.
What he describes as “the strangest and most disturbing”
case he has covered is described at length in his most recent article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9606161/The-worst-scandal-I-have-seen-in-my-50-year-career.html
It is clear from Booker’s account of this case that not only
were matters dealt with in the Family Court, but also that the parents were successfully
prosecuted in a jury trial in the criminal courts. Apparently, they were
subsequently imprisoned.
Nobody would deny that miscarriages of justice occur. But Booker
must do more than simply assert that this case is a 'travesty of justice'. The
only evidence he offers is that he knows ‘enough’ about the family and that he
has followed the case for two years. Clearly he is convinced of the parents’
innocence, but to convince others what are required are hard facts – not simply
a reporter’s opinions.
The child protection system can be a soft touch for
campaigning journalists. Professionals involved in complex legal proceedings
are unlikely to rush to be interviewed. Family members inevitably, and
understandably, will often provide only a one-sided account. Crucial evidence
may not be in the public domain.
I find it difficult to believe for one moment that there is
some sort of conspiracy between medical experts, local authorities, the police
and the courts. Yet that appears to be the only possible explanation of cases
like the ones Booker recounts.
In my view the child protection system in Britain has important
weaknesses and from time to time it fails. Things are by no means perfect. That
is because the task is complex and difficult. There are frequently resourcing
issues and there are important procedural and bureaucratic obstacles to good
practice. But there is no conspiracy. When things go wrong they are usually failures,
not felonies.
And most of the time things are broadly done correctly, even
if that is with some difficulty.
The least helpful approach to creating a climate of
improvement in child protection is to foster a myth of child snatching
conspiracies – in Booker’s words “...cases of children seized from their
parents for what appear to be quite absurd reasons”. I have been involved with
child protection since 1977 and I have yet to meet a social worker who wants to
split up loving families. Most go to work hoping that they can keep children
with their birth parents wherever possible, even though they know that is often
hard to do.
One of the aims of the new College of Social Work
is to engage with the media to promote a more accurate and positive portrayal
of social work. Perhaps they should invite Christopher Booker to meet some
child protection social workers?
