Charity urges change in neglect law to recognise emotional abuse

Recent advances in neuroscience have transformed professional understanding of how neglect can damage the developing brain of a child. Chronic stress, caused by both emotional and physical neglect, has a toxic effect on the brain, impairing cognitive, emotional and social growth.

The current law on child neglect, which is nearly 80 years old, focuses on protecting children from physical harm. But the charity Action for Children believes this legislation is out of date. It is calling for the law to be reviewed and for the definition of neglect to be amended to reflect the importance of children’s emotional and developmental needs.

Shaun Kelly, head of safeguarding at Action for Children, describes the current law as “a life and limb definition”, which does not encompass the latest evidence on child neglect.

“We know that consistent and sometimes relatively low-level neglect can have a severe impact on children and young people over a period of time,” he explains. “We also know how important the relationship between parents and a child is and the fact that emotional neglect can affect brain development, children’s ability to engage in school and their ability to form relationships in later life.”

The charity wants legislation revised to outline the fact that a failure to provide for a child’s emotional, physical, nutritional, educational and supervision and guidance needs are all instances of neglect.

Kelly argues that this would help prevent neglect happening in the first place, since parents would be clear about what constitutes neglect, and professionals such as social workers and the police would know when to intervene in suspected cases of maltreatment.

“Our research has shown that parents are very confused about the criminal law in regards to neglect,” he says. “In terms of professionals, 36 per cent of police officers and 51 per cent of social workers told us they have felt powerless to intervene when they have suspected a child is being neglected. So parents need to know more about what is acceptable parenting and professionals need to be clear about what levels of intervention are appropriate.”

Simple guidance
He argues that parents would benefit from simple guidance on the issue. “It would be useful to have more guidance on what the dangers of certain behaviours are, such as leaving children on their own for a night,” he says.

“We wouldn’t be in favour of having a lot of age-related guidance, but we all agree that leaving a five-year-old on their own overnight is not acceptable. The law needs to more accurately reflect that, at the same time as being nuanced to recognise that there are some complex areas that need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.”

Kelly adds that using criminal law to deal with parents who neglect their children is not always appropriate, particularly if the parents themselves were neglected as children and lack the parenting skills they need to do better for their own families.

“The use of the criminal law in neglect cases has trebled in the past 10 years,” he says. “We know that the disposals of that tend to be a caution or a criminal sentence. We want more flexible options to be provided via sentencing guidelines with options around parenting programmes.”

Debbie Jones, president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, believes that neglect is a growing problem, and one that all professionals need to address as early as possible. She agrees that “criminalising parents does not improve parenting”, but argues that a change in legislation is unnecessary.

“Statutory and voluntary agencies already work with parents who neglect their children and there are plenty of ways of promoting and using early help and statutory family law interventions if the intention is to improve parenting and prevent continuing neglect,” she explains. “The criminal law is not the place to define ‘good enough’ parenting and doing so would not change thresholds for statutory social work support.”

Jones says that a parental guide based on the Children Act 1989 might be more helpful than a “needless change” in criminal legislation, if parents require more information about what constitutes neglect.

“Legislation guiding social work services is clear that any treatment that causes significant harm, or is likely to do so, should trigger support, and where required, formal intervention,” she adds.

Nushra Mansuri, professional officer at the British Association of Social Workers, is similarly unconvinced about the need for a change in legislation. But she admits the issue of neglect does need more attention from professionals.

Coherent definitions
“Social workers are often criticised for being overzealous and taking children away from their families for spurious reasons around emotional abuse,” she says. “There needs to be a more coherent definition of neglect and emotional abuse. Professionals need shared criteria to work from. At the moment, there is too much confusion.”

She argues that better training on the definitions of different types of abuse and thresholds for intervention in children’s cases is required. “We need training for everyone in the system so we have some agreement about what constitutes neglect. Then we can decide whether that child can remain in their situation or whether they need to be removed,” she explains. “There is still a lack of interdisciplinary training bringing health, social care, education, the third sector, legal profession and police together. Even the wider public need to understand why neglect and emotional abuse can be so devastating to children at any stage in their childhood.”

Mansuri is supportive of the notion that parenting courses should be offered to parents suspected of neglecting their children, but says such services ought to already be available.

“Because of the pressure our child protection system is under, things like preventative work and parenting support are falling down,” she warns. “The squeeze on resources means that we don’t have a coherent system and support does vary from authority to authority.”

Shadow children’s minister Catherine McKinnell is also concerned that inter-agency collaboration and investment in early intervention is at risk.

“My fear is that we are in fact seeing the dismantling of many of these supports and services,” she says. “The long-term costs and implications of failing to address the neglect of children today will be acutely felt in future years.”

But children’s minister Tim Loughton argues that the coalition is already prioritising children’s welfare and protection. “We’ve made clear that children’s services, police and the NHS must target vulnerable families well before children are put at risk,” he says.

“We know that if help is given to vulnerable children and families as early as possible, ?there is more chance of turning lives around and protecting them from harm.”

The case for a change in the law