The lesson of protecting disabled children needs to be learnt

Ofsted’s latest offering is a timely reminder that in that most complex of worlds – the protection of children – disabled children fare less well than they should. What’s more, they fare less well than the law says they should.

In its report Protecting Disabled Children: Thematic Inspection. Ofsted sets out its findings, which can but reinforce the view that if you are a disabled child you will face multiple disadvantage. In this instance, the reduced effectiveness of the services meant to protect you from harm.

The Ofsted report is measured, providing a useful range of case examples of both failure and success. But it lacks, to a remarkable degree, any real analysis, hinting that, for example, if safeguarding boards were more vigilant and interested, Ofsted’s findings might be less stark. There is just one passing comment about the role that ‘empathy’ may play in causing the abuse or neglect of disabled children.

The big child protection story as I was finishing my professional training was that of Maria Colwell. There were lessons to be learnt, as there have been in the regularly reported high profile cases ever since. The lesson of the lessons to be learnt is, on the whole, they are not learnt.

The theme of the majority of cases has been that the child is not seen or heard. Adults and carers become the focus of action or, more commonly, inaction. The professionals listen to the voice they can hear, likely to be the voice in front of them. This does not occur because the professionals have not read the right report, or are not following the latest guidance. It is the encounters we all have which shape our reality and encourage us to accept or reject the accounts of others.

How do we develop an opinion about whether this is a good or a bad parent? Whether this non-verbal disabled child, who I cannot interview, with an impairment about which this parent knows far more than I do, is in fact suffering significant harm as opposed to having serious weight loss resulting from their disability. Does my moral compass bend the needle to true north more persuasively than my professional one? Besides, this parent is suffering. They have little sleep and their caring tasks reach every corner of their lives. They are devoted to this disabled child so how could I even imagine they could be an abusive parent?

The march of professionalisation and the shelves heavy with Ofsted and other reports are by no means useless, replete as they are with the lessons to be learnt. But they are no substitute for high-quality one-to-one supervision, where one’s compass is checked for true north.

Together with other members of the Autism Alliance, Ambitious about Autism is developing autism-specific safeguarding guidance. We hope it will help us all in seeking out the voice of the child.

Andy Lusk is director of autism services at Ambitious about Autism. Follow Ambitious about Autism on Twitter https://twitter.com/#/ambitiousautism