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诉讼程序的途径，人们知之甚少。最近的研究首次确定了不同的法律结果；大约50%的婴儿被收养，但相当大一部分婴儿在照料程序结束时被送回亲生父母或大家庭和朋友的网络(Broadhurst等人，2018年)。该项目将侧重于后一类群体，解决3个利益攸关方迫切提出的问题，即这些婴儿在照料过程中的接触质量、对过渡到家或家人和朋友的照料的支持以及婴儿的照料计划在多大程度上支持他们的发育恢复。1989年《儿童法》提供了一个框架，法院可以在该框架内作出命令，授权将婴儿暂时或永久地从其父母身边带走。英国法院的一些法官将对婴儿的照料程序描述为对家庭生活的一种严重干预形式(例如R(G)诉诺丁汉市议会(2008))。一些评论家认为，在缺乏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(Featherstone等人，2014年)。已发现将婴儿带走与妇女在家庭法院反复出庭密切相关(Broadhurst等人，2017年)。但也有人认为，将婴儿长期留在受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年)。此外，参与照料程序的父母报告说，他们感到无力、受压迫，并以违反人权立法的方式受到对待(Ward等人，2012年)。然而，在辩论的所有方面，都有一个共识，那就是，关于团聚的专题--特别侧重于婴儿--研究严重不足，进一步的研究将加强决策和实践，同时在公法诉讼程序中平衡有关婴儿的政治和政策辩论。在《2017年儿童和社会工作法》的背景下，有关发展恢复的问题得到了新的重视。现在，地方当局和法院不仅需要考虑安置的适宜性，还需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学术研究的基础上，一些关于接受儿童保护程序的婴儿的出版物证明了这一点，以解决有关婴儿从公共照料返回家中的紧迫问题。我还将在目前为NSPCC完成的儿童团聚方面的工作以及作为教育部和几个地方当局独立顾问的丰富经验的基础上再接再厉。此外，该项目将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，并产生全新的分析，补充儿童和家庭司法中心最近关于监督令和特别监护的研究(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).