‘Parents Whose Children Are Looked After Away from Home: From Rescue to

Partnership?’

Kevin PilkingtonGlasgow School of Social Work

University of Strathclyde(k.pilkington@strath.ac.uk)

Seminar for the Glasgow School of Social Work

April 27th 2006

Parents - The centrality of poverty and gender inequality

Lone parent women reliant on benefits – children 11% more likely to be accommodated away from home (Wedge and Prosser, 1973)

62% of children accommodated come from a lone parent background (Holman, 1980)

90% of child care social work clients in receipt of state benefits (Becker et al, 1987)

1985 and 1992 – 78% of children in SRC admitted to care from households reliant on benefits & 90% of lone parent households headed by lone mothers (Buist, 2000)

A 2002 study of families who use the children’s hearings system (N = 1090) highlighted that 50% of the families were lone parent households; 69% relied on benefits and 93% of these households were headed by a women. (McGhee and Waterhouse, 2002)

Classification showing causes of separation of children from their parents in The Parish of

Glasgow, 15th May 1906.

Both Parents drunken, been in prison etc. 245 Parents sent to prison (Cruelty to Children Act) 34 Father dead; mother drunken and immoral 341 Father in hospital, seriously ill; mother dead 48 Mother in hospital, seriously ill; father dead

29 Father in hospital; mother drunken

32 Mother dead, father been drunken, in prison, or in desertion 136 Illegitimate; mother been drunken, immoral, or in prison etc. 258 Father dead; mother unfit, not suitable, unable to control, etc. 133 From variety of causes, such as Remits from Sheriff, one parent dead, other in asylum, illegitimate through bigamous marriage etc. 37

Total: 1293

Source: Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress 1909, Scottish Evidence. Submission by Mr J. R. Motion, Inspector and Clerk for Glasgow Parish Council, P.P. Cd. 4922. Glasgow City Council Regional Archives, D-HEW Series, cited in Pilkington, 2006)

Deserving and undeserving poor dichotomy

Policy of separation (rescue)

Unfit mother on statute

“The experience which those charged with the administration of the Poor Law have acquired since

1850has established that it is hurtful in practice to grant relief otherwise than in the poorhouse to the

followingclasses:- Mothers of illegitimate children, including widows with legitimate families who may fall into immoral habits; Deserted wives;...Wives of personssentenced to terms of imprisonment or penal servitude;...Generally speaking, all persons of idle, immoral, or dissipated habits”

(McPherson, 1909, p.11. Cd.4978, cited in Pilkington, 2006).

“The Board is quite aware that it would be mostinexpedient in many cases to comply with such a request; but the Board are afraid that an absolute refusalto allow a mother to communicate with her child is ameasure that would not be supported by public opinion, and that it might have an injurious effect in excitingprejudice against the boarding-out system. If the motherwere told that the information could not be afforded, butif she persisted in her demand relief would be withdrawnand afforded only in the Poorhouse to herself and child, itappears not improbable that the Parochial Board might succeed in effecting their object”

(J. Skelton, Secretary of the Board of Supervision, April 29, 1889, cited in Pilkington, 2006)

“Before concluding our report, it may be as well to mention a visit paid to Jane Perrie by her mother, who tramped all the way, incompany with a chimney sweep for the purpose of seeing her daughter. This importation for the time being, caused some little stirin the village, and did no good to our boarding system, as good guardians will not run the risk of having such visitors calling uponthem. It is a great pity but that powers could be granted to Parochial Boards, whereby parents of depraved habits should be refused theaddress of their children who are in the hands of the Board; and alsoin cases where parents may have obtained their children’s addressand visit them, otherwise action be taken against them, and somepunishment inflicted. “

Source: Minutes of Children’s Committee Barony, September 20,1886.

Case Histories ‘unfit mothers’

“This is the case of a widow, 31 years of age, a field worker, whose earnings were small and uncertain. She hadsix children, aged 12, 11,10, 8 and 4 years and one infant, illegitimate, a month old, born in widowhood. The childrenwere suffering a great privation as she was unable to earnsufficient to support them, and they were left alone for long periods while their mother was out working. The Society’s Inspector advised her to apply for parochial relief, but she positively refused to do so, as she feared that on account of herillegitimate infant, she would be offered the poorhouse. The

casewas specially brought under the notice of the Inspector of the Poor by the Society, and, as the mother was not considered a proper guardian, he at once had the five children boarded-out.The mother is now able to support the infant in a satisfactory way”

(Edinburgh Prevention of Cruelty to Children Society , 1910: 406-407, cited in Pilkington, 2006).

Case Histories ‘unfit mothers’

“He has on numerous occasions assaulted his wife, seizing herby the hair of the head and beaten and kicked her andthreatened to murder her and for protection she has been obliged to keep one or other of the aforesaid children from school each day, in order that they could be sent for the police if necessary...the other members of the family hedescribes as “fuckers” and by his cruel treatment and threatening language they live in a state of terror of him...Inrespect of the conduct of the said [father] towards his childrenaforesaid, it is desirable that they be taken from his custodyand committed to the care of a fit person...within the meaningof the said Act, the more especially as his wife aforesaidrefuses to live with him as his wife in future and she having no means of maintaining them herself”

Children’s Act, Criminal Officers’ And Female Assistant Inspectors’ Reports. 1919-20, VOL X. Glasgow City CouncilArchives. D-HEW 28/8, cited in Pilkington, 2006)

Children on the Poor Roll Scotland, June 30, 1945: Summary Report by the Department of Health for Scotland. Year ended 30th June 1945. Cmd. 6661. Edinburgh: HMSO.

In Poorhouses 176

In children's homesprovided by localauthorities or indetached blocks ofpoor law institutions 710In orphanages, approved schools 966Boarded out in private homes

(a) with relatives 883(b) with strangers 4494

Total 7229

Legislation and Policy under the Welfare State

The Children Act, 1948 (10 &11 Geo. 6. c.43.)

The Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (c.37).

Kilbrandon Report (1964), Report of the Committee on Children and Young Persons, Scotland, Cmnd.2306. Edinburgh: HMSO.

The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (c.49).

United Nation Convention On the Rights Of the Child (1989; UK 1991)

Scottish Office (1992) (Skinner Report) Another Kind Of Home: A review of residential child care, Scottish Office, Edinburgh: HMSO.

The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.36)

The Children (Scotland) Act 1995, Regulations and Guidance, Vol. 2, Children Looked After by Local Authorities, Edinburgh: Stationary Office.

Regulation of Care (Scotland ) Act 2001

Kinship defenders – prevention and rehabilitation

Society as parent – permanence

Partnership with parents

Distribution of responses by field and residential social workers on the significance of poverty in increasing the likelihood of children being accommodated in children’s homes N = 30x2

Social Workers Residential Workers

Cases % Cases %Highly 11 37 6 20

Very 8 27 8 27

Frequently 7 23 12 40

Occasionally 1 3 4 13

Rarely 3 10 - -

Never - - - -

RSW - Frequently significant

I would say it plays a factor in about half the cases – maybe evenmore. I don’t know how much of this is self-inflicted though. We havecases where parents have spent the money we have given them foraccess on drink.

I grew up, in fact still live in the area where some of our childrencome from, but you have to remember that poverty is important, thestress and things, but it is also about attitude. How people deal withpoverty.

Parents are often very needy. I’m sure poverty doesn’t help. It wouldbe wrong though to suggest that poverty was the main reason. Mostpeople in poverty manage fine. For some people poverty is obviouslyimportant. But sometimes parents have only themselves to blame. Itwouldn’t matter how much money they had.

Poverty is not easy, but we are not living in the third world. Ifparents were taught how to manage their benefits/money better thenthis would help. But I suppose that has been tried. The attitude of alot of parents is what is mainly the problem.

SW - Frequently significant

Poverty can be a major stress within families, which may contribute to, but not cause situations leading to children being accommodated in children’s homes

If not the most significant factor, often connected. For example, areas of poverty often have high levels of drugs and alcohol misuse.

Drugs and alcohol abuse is most problematic, child care standards rapidly decrease if parents have a drugs and alcohol dependency.

The problem with drugs, especially, is more pressing than poverty.

Distribution of responses by field and residential social workers on their perceptions of the parenting skills of parents whose children are accommodated in children’s homes N = 30x2

Social Workers Residential Workers

Cases % Cases %Excellent - - - -

Very Good - - - -

Good 2 6 1 3

Satisfactory 3 10 6 20

Poor 16 54 17 57

Unsatisfactory 9 30 6 20

SW – Poor Parenting Skills

Varies from parents being concerned enough to be involved in wishing to change themselves, to parents who are verbally and emotionally abusive towards the child in care. I find that the majority of parents I am involved with did not enjoy good parenting in their childhoods.

All of the parents I have come across have had no positive experience in their lives of good parenting. Often they have learning difficulties and at a personal level have limited coping abilities. Their needs are Number 1.

Their skills are generally poor, which is why, after, all their children are in care.

Parents of children in care are on the whole neglectful, provide poor nutrition and hygiene standards.

There have been occasions when parenting skills have been excellent but generally this has not been the case.

In the majority of cases the parenting skills are poor affected greatly by addiction problems. However, I have also seen very able parents struggling with adolescent children who make the wrong choices in their friendships.

Distribution of responses by parents, field and residential social workers on whether parents contribute to the planning of their child’s care N = 30x3

----------------------------------------------------------------

Parents ‘Yes’ = 11 36% -------------------------------------------------------------

--- Social Workers Residential Workers

Cases % Cases %

Always 2 6 2 6 Frequently 8 26 4 13Occasionally 14 46 10 13Not very often 6 20 14 46Never - - - -

RSW – Parents not very often involved

In my experience the majority of parents rarely take the opportunity to get involved in care planning, although there are some exceptions.

A lot of parents don’t seem that bothered that we have taken over the care of their child.

Usually most of the ideas, discussions have taken place before it is even discussed with parents.

Parents are not helped to participate enough and even when they are their views are usually not explored in any detail.

In my experience parents contribute little to care plans. Residential workers play too much of a leading role.

More recently parents are becoming more involved in the care plans for their child, but this I feel was not always the case and we have a bit of catching up to do. If parents are not actively demanding or showing real commitment to this then we tend to resort back to making decisions on their behalf and seeking agreement at meetings.

The way forward?

Expenditure and accountability…..

Education…..

21st Century Review….

Care Commission (2004)

‘Young people spoke about how vital it is to stay in contact with families and frequently rated it as one of the most crucial standards. While some were given help to keep in contact, others were not. Young people must be helped to maintain these vital links. Time and resource is needed to make sure that partnerships are made with families and parents’ (39).