Connecting Events in Time to Identify a Hidden Population: Birth Mothers and Their Children in Recurrent Care Proceedings in England

Abstract

There is international concern about the population of birth mothers who experience repeat court-ordered removal of children. This article reports the findings from a population profiling study that provides the first picture of the scale of women's repeat involvement in public law proceedings in England. Based on national records from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) (n ¼ 43,541 birth mothers, 2007-14), two subsets of mother, child and legal proceedings data were created. The aims of the study were to:(i) produce a descriptive profile of recurrent cases, (ii) estimate the probability and timing of recurrence and (iii) examine the relationship between maternal age and recurrence. Quantitative analysis comprised descriptive statistics for profiling purposes and methods of survival analysis to estimate probabilities. Findings indicate that the family justice system recycles a sizeable percentage of women (24 per cent) through repeat episodes of care proceedings, with young women aged sixteen to nineteen years most at risk of recurrence. Implications for social workers and the family courts are outlined with reference to new innovations in England.

Babies Removed at Birth: What Professionals Can Learn From ‘Women Like Me’

“…Up until 2007, there had been some downward trends in the number of children who were subject to a child protection plan and subsequently removed to local authority care. However, the emerging research in neuroscience has provided an evidence base that has contributed to a significant increase in the initiation of court proceedings across all age groups, and particularly in children under the age of one year (Broadhurst et al, ). It is further known that if a baby can be adopted in the first 12 months, there is a better chance of total recovery (Ward et al, ).…”

“…A woman's desire for a repeat pregnancy in order to replace her baby is common, as is attempting to evade detection from authorities and to keep her baby by not engaging with services. Of these mothers, those aged 16 to 19 years at the time of their first removal are most at risk of recurrent pregnancies and subsequent repeat removals (Broadhurst et al, ). The Mothers Apart Project (https://mothersapartproject.com) and Pause (https://www.pause.org.uk/) are organisations that work with mothers who have experienced, or are at risk of, repeat removals of children from their care.…”

“…There is international concern about the growing number of mothers who experience having a baby removed at birth (Broadhurst et al, ). Substance misuse, mental ill health, parental learning difficulties and living with a violent partner can be contributory factors (Marsh et al, ).…”

Harnessing the Power of Data to Improve Family Justice: A New Nuffield Family Justice Observatory For England and Wales

“…This focus was partly informed by the publication of some influential descriptive studies, funded by Nuffield, which generated new insights into the operation of the system by analyzing newly available data from the Electronic Case Management System developed by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass), which provides advice to the courts in all public and private law cases involving dependent children. For example, one leading study provided the first national estimate of the prevalence and characteristics of mothers subject to ‘repeat care proceedings,’ leading to major central and local government investment in new preventative solutions (Broadhurst et al, ; Broadhurst, Mason, Bedston, et al, ). This study also prompted further interest in fathers in recurrent care proceedings (Philip et al, ) and in returning cases in private law (Halliday, Green, & Marsh, ).…”

“…Following the publication of the 2015 briefing paper, the Foundation commissioned a scoping study to establish in more detail the purpose, functions, and delivery options for a new Observatory (Broadhurst et al, ). At the heart of the Foundation's approach was a desire to engage policy makers and practitioners in the design and focus of the proposed Observatory.…”