Search

This study explored how day-to-day social work practice with children and families in Wales responds to poverty, building on case studies already published in the other three UK nations. A case study design was used. The sites were locality teams in two local authorities, differing in their children looked after rates and trajectories of these over time. Qualitative research methods included practice observations; interviews with staff; focus groups; mapping of decision-making processes; and a sample of family case narratives. In one local authority, the range of data was similar to the other UK nation case studies. However, in the second, data collection was adapted to the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) lockdown context. Some evidence was found of narratives that emphasised the cultural, rather than material, aspect of poverty, and blamed parents for making inappropriate spending choices. Poverty alleviation was generally seen as outside of social workers' control and requiring earlier help before social services involvement. In one of the local authorities, there was some awareness shown of the impact of poverty on parenting. In the other, that took part in the study during 2020, the exacerbating effects of families in lockdown were described, including the lack of family support due to pandemic restrictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Care for children in residential settings is popularly characterised as the last resort for children who have had multiple failed placements and often high levels of need, requiring therapeutic help. It is often assumed that children will leave residential care for independent living. Using administrative data for a six-year period (2008-2014) for children "looked after" in Wales, univariate and bivariate analyses were conducted to provide a characteristic profile of the residential child care population. Of those placed in a residential setting, the vast majority of children were voluntarily placed and the most common reason for leaving residential care was going home. A similar number of children left residential care to move back to a family setting as entered residential care from a family setting, which challenges the assumption of residential care as necessarily the final destination in a troubled care history. The fact that large numbers of children are placed voluntarily in residential care might suggest some potential for preventing some of these placements and keeping children at home with support. Appropriate measures are needed to support children returning from residential care to live with birth families, as well as support for independent living.

Background: This analysis is about practical living bioethics and how law, ethics and sociology understand and respect children's consent to, or refusal of, elective heart surgery. Analysis of underlying theories and influences will contrast legalistic bioethics with living bioethics. In-depth philosophical analysis compares social science traditions of positivism, interpretivism, critical theory and functionalism and applies them to bioethics and childhood, to examine how living bioethics may be encouraged or discouraged. Illustrative examples are drawn from research interviews and observations in two London paediatric cardiac units. This paper is one of a series on how the multidisciplinary cardiac team members all contribute to the complex mosaic of care when preparing and supporting families' informed consent to surgery. Results: The living bioethics of justice, care and respect for children and their consent depends on theories and practices, contexts and relationships. These can all be undermined by unseen influences: the history of adult-centric ethics; developmental psychology theories; legal and financial pressures that require consent to be defined as an adult contract; management systems and daily routines in healthcare that can intimidate families and staff; social inequalities. Mainstream theories in the clinical ethics literature markedly differ from the living bioethics in clinical practices. Conclusion: We aim to contribute to raising standards of respectful paediatric bioethics and to showing the relevance of virtue and feminist ethics, childhood studies and children's rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]