Professor Eileen Munro explains that a new approach is required in respect of child protection - with less focus on inspection, regulations and rules

Comments

[John Wood]

A policy on fewer regulations and rules should result in an overall benefit for child protection.

The current rules no doubt make sure that anything that goes wrong will result in 'lessons being learnt' and those children who are spotted needing protection will be processed better, however having fewer rules means that far more children could be identified using current resources.

[Tapestry]

How about the processes of the Family Courts being made public?

The secrecy extends from the bottom to the top, and the public has no idea that so many children are being removed from their families, and that the numbers are targeted by central government, with hefty bonuses paid if targets are met. Children being removed from famoiliies should never be targeted. This is a criminally dishonest presentation failing to deal with the key issue of state power being used to smash families, without any reporting of any case being allowed. The cases that do come to light such as Howard Moat whose children were seized, and caused murder and serious injury, are dealt with as if the injury to the individual whose children are removed, never happened. Also the Riggi woman who killed her children rather than let them be seized from her by the state. Why are the details always kept secret? It's a travesty.

Where are there any children coming forward and saying 'Thank God I was taken away from my parents out of the 20,000 children seized every year. Nearly every one would have preferred to be left with their parents but then what would the bureaucracies have to do?