Still Putting Themselves at Risk: The Problem with Binary Positions

I have a twitter account that I do not use too often. I find if I spend too long on social media I can regress to my formative years of worrying what everyone else might think of me, worrying that what I have to offer is not as good as others. The perils of social media however are not the purpose of this entry. But alongside many of the responses that twitter elicit for me, one is to think! In my world, twitter is alive with the certainty of what we should do - or actually most often not do. I read one tweet recently about safeguarding professionals needing to 'walk the walk' - a critical reflection asking whether agencies are putting into practice what they say (or perhaps believe, but more about that later). It was the commentary however that really made me think, commentary from those who would condemn the prosecution of children where exploitation is overtly evident, yet moralise behaviours considered anti-social, or in this case, 'beyond belief'. It made me think firstly about a child's agency in circumstances where the law is broken and then of the multitude of factors that influence, create and sustain behaviour. This raised for me the dilemma of where the line is drawn between criminality and victimhood when both intersect and how walking that walk might not be quite so simple.

Exploitation, in particular criminal exploitation, has presented distinct challenges for responding agencies; how do we protect victims of victims who may also create victims? That sounds difficult to comprehend, but in real terms many of us are working with children who are actively suffering harm while also harming others. Reflecting on my own practice, I have frequently taken a position that a child cannot consent to their own abuse. I have also needed to recognise that alongside vulnerability, a child's actions can cause other individuals serious harm. In both scenarios I have endorsed plans that override, or at least limit, a child's freedom when they have - in my view - continued to suffer or cause harm. Lefevre, M., Hickle, K., & Luckock, B., (2019) suggest taking a 'both/and' over an 'either/or' approach in the case of exploitation to help guide responses. Many of our systems however, the law - and several commentators - do not always afford such curiosity and the binary decisions taken can directly impact the safety of the child, family and community.

Are we contributing to the challenge?

In all scenarios, but perhaps more so in the case of secure accommodation, I have thought carefully about the impact for a child's identity concerning restrictions that arise from 'welfare' versus 'criminality'. What must it be like to be categorised as 'vulnerable' if you are trying to acquire a reputation for causing harm because it keeps you safe? In her 2018 study, Ellis researched children within the same secure establishment but who had entered secure accommodation through both criminal and welfare routes. For those placed on welfare grounds, Ellis found what she described as a 'contested vulnerability' whereby the label 'vulnerable' had been imposed. Regardless of route, Ellis found that overwhelmingly intervention was designed to achieve behavioural change through the child’s recognition of risk and the reunification between child and predetermined ideals of childhood. Interestingly, both routes led to behavioural change on the part of the young person being required to signal a reduction in risk.

"There remains a legacy in which extra-familial harm is conceptualised as the consequence of 'poor decisions' - rather than decisions made in a set of poor/constrained situations," (Firmin, 2020).

This raises the question as to what degree a child can exercise agency in an exploitative situation - in our view as professionals. If it is the case that a child cannot consent to their own abuse, why are plans focussed on what the child needs to avoid, think or do differently? How many of you oversee plans where children have suffered extra familial harm including exploitation, are involved in criminality or lack safe, stable, nurturing care? How many of those plans are focussed on what the child needs to think or do differently? We may have changed our language but if the plan hinges solely on what the child needs to do differently how can we conclude that it is anything other than considering the child to be responsible for 'putting themselves at risk'.

"If the young person is deemed either unable or unwilling to take advice from adults, if they fail to calculate risks properly – and make the wrong ‘choice’ – the result is a perception of increased risk," (Roesch-Marsh, 2014)

What are the factors contributing to this child's vulnerability? Are they being tackled through your assessment of what needs to change around the child to increase safety? Have you considered the child's agency, their rights and what that means for your assessment? In truth, circumstances are usually far more complex than an 'either/or' view allows.

Ask yourself, 'What Needs to Change Around the Child?'

References:

Ellis, K., 2018. Contested vulnerability: A case study of girls in secure care. Children and Youth Services Review 88 156-163.

Firmin, C., 2020. Contextual Safeguarding and Child Protection. Oxon: Routledge

Lefevre, M., Hickle, K., & Luckock, B., 2019. ‘Both/and’ not ‘either/or’: reconciling rights to protection and participation in working with child sexual exploitation, British Journal of Social Work

Roesch-Marsh, A., 2014. ‘Out of Control’: Making sense of the behavior of young people referred to secure accommodation. British Journal of Social Work 44 197-213.