Loughborough University
Leicestershire, UK
LE11 3TU
+44 (0)1509 263171
Loughborough University

Loughborough University Institutional Repository

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/20396

Title: Cumulative jeopardy when children are at risk of significant harm: A response to Bywaters
Authors: Ward, Harriet
Brown, Rebecca
Keywords: Safeguarding infants
Child protection
Significant harm
Children's and parents' rights
Family support
Issue Date: 2016
Publisher: © Elsevier
Citation: WARD, H. and BROWN, R., 2016. Cumulative jeopardy when children are at risk of significant harm: A response to Bywaters. Children and Youth Services Review, 61, pp. 222-229.
Abstract: This paper is a response to Bywaters' (2015) critique of our paper on 'Cumulative Jeopardy' (Brown & Ward, 2014), in which we presented data showing a mismatch between timeframes for early childhood development and responses to evidence of abuse and neglect from professionals with safeguarding responsibilities. Bywaters (2015) claims that the study on which it is based is flawed on methodological, empirical, conceptual and ethical grounds. This paper explores each of these grounds for criticism and refutes them. We point out that Bywaters' calculations are inaccurate and lead him to exaggerate the methodological weaknesses of our study. Bywaters argues that we should have collected additional empirical data on deprivation factors; but this would not have significantly improved our classification of risk of future harm or altered our key findings. These show that a high proportion of children in the sample were not adequately safeguarded from harm, an issue that Bywaters ignores. Instead, he asserts that we have an ideological bias towards separation, and this forms the basis for much of his conceptual and ethical criticism. We reject this argument, pointing out that the study focused on those infants who were at greatest risk of compromised development, injury and death from maltreatment, and that these are the babies for whom the fundamental question is whether or not they can safely remain at home. We do not interpret our data as necessarily indicating that more children should come into care, as Bywaters claims, but that more needs to be done to safeguard them from harm, whether they are living with birth parents or placed permanently away from home.
Description: This paper was accepted for publication in the journal Children and Youth Services Review and the definitive published version is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.12.021
Sponsor: The study was funded by the Department for Education, England
Version: Accepted for publication
DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.12.021
URI: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/20396
Publisher Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.12.021
ISSN: 0190-7409
Appears in Collections:Published Articles (Communication, Media, Social and Policy Studies)

Files associated with this item:

File Description SizeFormat
Ward H and Brown R Revised Paper Cumulative Jeopardy Response to Bywaters.pdfAccepted version101.71 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


SFX Query

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.