Real action for children

Civitas, 15 October 2010

On occasion, I arrived at school after the registration bell.  My hair was a mess, my uniform rumpled and my lunchbox nearly empty.  By today’s standards, I would have qualified as a neglected child.

 I certainly was not; perhaps forgetful, greedy and stubborn, but not neglected.  I was late because I’d left my science homework at home and returned to collect it.  I only had half a ham sandwich because I’d already eaten the rest (in addition to breakfast).   My uniform was untidy because I’d just sprinted the last 100 yards to the school gate and my hair was scraggly because I was a stubborn nine-year-old girl who would rather go without break-time than succumb to my mother’s primping and preening.   I imagine my peers didn’t envy my chaotic entrance; but my teachers were astute enough to consider my appearance in light of my personality, age and the frequency of my tardiness.

Action for Children, on the other hand, suggest my classmates’ concerns should have been followed up with a home-visit.  A national, large-scale survey into acknowledging the conspicuous symptoms of child neglect reveal that nearly a third (61%) of eight to 12-year-olds have witnessed signs of this form of abuse in their classrooms, playgrounds and local neighbourhoods.  There is nothing to suggest that participants had already recognised these lonely, hungry children in dirty, smelly clothes as victims of child neglect—a problem at the crux of Action for Children’s wider investigation into the nature of child neglect, its effects and solutions.  This report, then, comes as somewhat of a surprise—the obstacle obscuring access to victims is one inherent in the nature of the abuse.  ‘Neglect is the persistent failure to meet a child’s basic needs,’ needs that even the victim may not recognise as lacking, let alone their peers.

The report’s conclusions are perhaps even more surprising; the charity urges ‘the public to listen to what children have revealed and look out for signs of child neglect in their own communities, as everyone has a part to play in protecting the most vulnerable children’.  The causes of child neglect are complex and practitioners have only its vague symptoms to rely on.  ‘Intuition’ in social work spheres has become a bad word; it can’t be taught or measured, and sometimes it fails us.  Yet, it is a combination of this, and the frequency of isolated  concerns for a child that define any subsequent course of action.  Children, with their propensity to forget and proclivity to embellish magnificently, should not become our frontline workers.   Victoria Climbie’s legacy, that ‘the welfare of the child is paramount’ should be prefaced with an ‘adults only’ clause.  The involvement of children in this darkest of realities will only further erode the fractious relationship between adults and children.

Action for Children’s Child Neglect Intervention Project is a necessary step towards better understanding children and the futures they face; however, if in receipt of funds next Wednesday, I hope money is spent on the real work that can be done to intervene and not on further complicating our relationships with children at home, in schools and in local communities.