![]() They lead to interventions, including child protection investigations and taking children into care, which can themselves harm children and families. These contradictions and exaggerations orient staff to believe that there is no valid explanation for bruises or that valid reasons cannot be accepted, reducing curiosity and exploration of alternative explanations. “Any explanation that any injury, barring a small scratch, is self-inflicted should not be accepted.” “Infants do not bruise themselves by lying on a dummy or banging themselves with rattles and other infant toys or by flopping forwards and banging their heads against their parents’ faces.” Twenty three local authority procedures directly contradicted this, as in the following two examples: “… included bumping into mother’s tooth, falling asleep on a dummy, banging themselves with a fist or rattle and a toy that was dropped on one baby … 12 children who had fallen or toppled over, 7 rolled into something, 4 banged into an object and 6 hit themselves with an object.” Research into parents’ explanations of non-accidental bruises in pre-mobile children found causes: This challenges the idea that bruises alone are a reliable sign that physical abuse is ongoing or is likely and shows bruising is far from rare. ![]() Further, a UK study found that 27% of pre-mobile babies had an accidental bruise over an average of eight weekly observations. My article shows that the lowest finding would mean there would be almost 2,000 accidental bruises for every infant placed on a child protection plan for physical abuse. What the evidence on bruising saysĪccording to the panel, research shows that between 0.6% and 5.3% of children not yet crawling had an accidental bruise on any single observation. It also orients staff towards thinking that such bruises are highly likely to be non-accidental. This view was used to justify removing discretion from frontline staff. Most standalone procedures had the rationale that bruising in pre-mobile babies was very rare and likely to be “highly predictive” of non-accidental injury. The harm to children and families by this investigative orientation is discussed below. Seven of these required all bruised babies to be investigated under section 47 of the 1989 Children Act and 28 required a strategy discussion. Almost a quarter treated any bruise in a pre-mobile baby as “reasonable cause to suspect significant harm” without any assessment of the case. My research with a colleague, published this week, reviewed policies covering 148 of England’s 152 local authorities and found most risked misleading staff by exaggerating the risk that a bruise was non-accidental. So why does the panel require these policies to change and what should they say? Is a bruise ‘reasonable cause to suspect significant harm’? The panel acknowledges that there are a small number of children who are seriously harmed or die, where bruises have been seen by staff with a responsibility to protect children before more serious injuries have taken place. ![]() In a recent report, the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel (“the panel”) asked safeguarding partners to review their policies on bruising in non-mobile infants “to check for consistency with the evidence base and national guidelines.” ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |