Very young babies returning home from public care: pathways to permanence

婴儿比任何其他儿童群体更有可能成为护理程序的对象（Broadhurst等人，2018年）。然而，关于婴儿进入和超越家庭法庭诉讼程序的途径的知识却很少。最近的研究第一次确定了不同的法律的结果;大约50%的婴儿被收养，但相当大比例的婴儿在护理程序结束时被送回亲生父母或大家庭和朋友网络（Broadhurst等人，2018年）。该项目将侧重于后一组，解决有关这些婴儿在护理过程中接触质量的紧迫问题，1989年《儿童法》提供了一个框架，在这个框架内，法院可以发布命令，授权临时或永久地将婴儿带走，从他或她的父母。在英格兰，一些法官将为婴儿发放护理程序描述为对家庭生活的一种严重干预形式（例如，R（G）诉诺丁汉市理事会案（2008年））。一些评论者指出，在缺乏对建立家庭复原力的积极支持的情况下，国家采取了高度干预性的行动（费瑟斯通等人，2014年）。已经发现，将婴儿带走与妇女在家庭法院的重复出庭密切相关（Broadhurst等人，2017年）的报告。然而，其他人认为，将婴儿长时间留在虐待或忽视的家庭环境中同样是不可接受的，有可能造成长期的发育损害（Ward等人，2012).除此之外，参与照料程序的父母报告说，他们感到被剥夺权力、受到压迫，并受到违反人权立法的待遇（Ward等人，2012年）。然而，在辩论的各个方面，都有一个共识，即重新统一的主题-特别关注婴儿-研究严重不足，进一步的研究将加强决策和实践，同时在公法诉讼中平衡有关婴儿的政治和政策辩论。关于发展恢复的问题在2017年儿童和社会工作法的背景下得到了新的重视。地方当局和法院现在不仅要考虑安置的合适性，还要考虑永久性计划在多大程度上支持儿童的发育恢复。这个项目将建立在我自己在儿童保护方面的大量奖学金的基础上，通过一些关于接受儿童保护程序的婴儿的出版物来证明，以解决婴儿从公共护理中回家的紧迫问题。我还将利用我正在为NSPCC完成的关于儿童团聚的工作，以及我作为教育部和几个地方当局的独立顾问的丰富经验。此外，该项目还利用新的纳菲尔德家庭司法观察站的数据资源，以获取有价值的人口水平数据，并进行全新的分析，补充儿童和家庭司法中心最近关于监督令和特殊监护的研究（Harwin等人，2016 - 2019年）。

Infants are far more likely, than any other group of children, to become subjects of care proceedings(Broadhurst et al., 2018). Yet knowledge about infant pathways into and beyond family courtproceedings is scant. Very recent research has for the first time, identified divergent legal outcomes;approximately 50% of infants are adopted, but a substantial proportion of infants are eitherreturned to birth parents or extended family and friends' networks, at the conclusion of careproceedings (Broadhurst et al., 2018). This project will focus on the latter group, addressing pressing 3stakeholder questions about the quality of contact for these babies during care proceedings,support for transition home or to family and friends care and the extent to which the care plan forthe baby supports their developmental recovery.The Children Act 1989 provides a framework within which a court can make an order authorisingthe interim or permanent removal of the infant from his or her parents. Issuing care proceedingsfor infants has been described as a severe form of intervention in family life by some judges incourts in England (e.g. R (G) v Nottingham City Council (2008)). Several commentators have arguedthat highly intrusive action is taken by the State, in the absence of positive support to build familyresilience (Featherstone et al., 2014). The removal of infants has been found to be stronglyassociated with women's repeat appearances in the family courts (Broadhurst et al., 2017). Yetothers would argue that leaving infants for prolonged periods in abusive or neglectful householdcircumstances is equally unacceptable, risking longer-term developmental harm (Ward et al., 2012).Adding to this, parents involved with care proceedings, report feelings of disempowerment,oppression, and being treated in a way that is contrary to Human Rights legislation (Ward et al.,2012). On all sides of debate however, there is a consensus that the topic of reunification - with aspecific focus on babies - is hugely under-researched and that further research would strengthendecision-making and practice, whilst at the same time bringing balance to political and policydebates about infants in public law proceedings. Questions about developmental recovery havereceived new emphasis in the context of the Children and Social Work Act 2017. Local authoritiesand the courts are now required, not just to consider the suitability of placements, but also theextent to which permanency plans support the developmental recovery of the child.This project will build on my own substantial scholarship in child protection, evidenced by a numberof publications concerning infants subject to child protection procedures, to address pressingquestions about infant return home from public care. I will also build on current work I amcompleting for the NSPCC on child reunification, and my extensive experience as an independentconsultant to the Department for Education and several local authorities. In addition, the projectwill draw on the data resources of the new Nuffield Family Justice Observatory to access valuablepopulation level data and produce completely new analyses and complement recent research withinthe Centre for Child and Family Justice regarding supervision orders and special guardianship(Harwin et al., 2016-2019).