Interpretación y discusión de resultados de la

Gender of the children

There were 77 children in the FDAC sample and 49 in the comparison sample. The gender distribution was fairly even: the FDAC sample had almost equal numbers of boys and girls, and the comparison sample had just a few more girls than boys.

Age of the children

A feature of both samples was the young age of the children, but with the FDAC sample being relatively younger. Over two-thirds of the FDAC children were under five, and over half of those children were under a year. In the comparison group, over half were under five, with most of those under one. There were two children over 13 in each sample.

Table 13: Age of children

Age in years FDAC children Comparison children

Unborn 1 [ 1%] - Under 1 30 [39%] 17 [35%] 1-4 21 [27%] 9 [18%] 5-10 17 [22%] 13 [27%] 11-13 6 [ 8%] 8 [16%] 14 - 1 [ 2%] 15 2 [ 3%] - 16 - 1 [ 2%] Total 77 [100%] 49 [100%]

Ethnicity of the children

The majority of the FDAC children were White, mainly White British. Mixed-heritage children formed the second largest group. Smaller numbers were Black (African, Caribbean or Other). In the comparison sample, the largest number of children (over a quarter) were Black, almost all of them Black Caribbean. There were similar numbers of mixed-heritage children and White children.

Figure 6: Ethnicity of children

Children’s difficulties

Children in both samples had a range of problems, with some children having multiple difficulties. Emotional and behavioural difficulties were common in each sample. For younger children, these symptoms included temper tantrums, aggression, bed-wetting, anxiety, tearfulness, bullying and being bullied. For older children, the problems included aggression, bullying, verbal abuse and occasional physical abuse. The behaviour of these older children caused problems at home and at school (including falling behind in school work) and in some cases led to threatened or actual school exclusion.

The most frequent difficulties experienced by the FDAC children related to physical health. These were reported across the age range and, exceptionally, included very serious medical conditions such as cleft palate and congenital heart disease. More common problems were poor dental care, overweight or obesity, eyesight problems and difficulties arising from premature birth.

A noticeable difference was the higher frequency of FDAC children born withdrawing from drugs, a finding that may be associated with the higher number of infants in the sample. The detail about the above findings is as follows:

 emotional and behavioural difficulties – FDAC 26 children (34%), comparison

20 children (41%)

 health difficulties – FDAC 51(66%), comparison 23 (47%)

 drug withdrawal at birth – FDAC 21 (27%), comparison 3 (6%), and

 developmental delay – FDAC 9 (12%), comparison 8 (16%). Local authority concerns about the children

As these were care proceedings, all the children were deemed to be suffering, or at risk of suffering, significant harm. In each sample over two-thirds of the cases involved both actual and likely harm. Applications do not always specify the type of harm but, where the information was recorded, the most frequent type in each sample was the combined category of physical harm, emotional harm and neglect. Few cases were based on the likelihood of future harm only, particularly in the FDAC sample (FDAC 12%[8 of 66], comparison 31% [15 of 49]).

Where the children were living

At the start of the proceedings the children were living in various different settings. Just over a quarter of each sample were living at home – most with their mother, and a few with both parents or with their mother and her partner. Others were with relatives or foster carers and one older FDAC child was in a residential crisis centre.

Table 14: The child’s living arrangements at the time of the first hearing With whom or where the child was

living at the start of proceedings FDAC children Comparison children

Mother 13 [17%] 11 [22%] Father 1 [ 1%] 2 [ 4%] Both parents 5 [ 7%] 1 [ 2%] Grandparent(s) 7 [ 9%] 2 [ 4%] Other relative(s) 3 [ 4%] 6 [12%] Foster carer 9 [12%] 16 [33%] Hospital 18 [24%] 5 [10%]

Mother and partner 2 [ 3%] 1 [ 2%]

Mother or father, but not at home 7 [ 9%]* 2 [ 4%]**

Residential provision 1 [ 1%] -

Other - 3 [ 6%]

Total for the calculation 76 [100%] 49 [100%]

Unknown 1 -

Total 77 49

* 3 were with a parent in residential provision, 1 in foster care, 1 in hospital, and 2 unclear.

The biggest difference between the samples was in the number of children who were in hospital. This was the situation for nearly a quarter of FDAC children but very few comparison children (FDAC 23% [18 of 76], comparison 10% [5 of 49]). Almost all these FDAC children were infants. Some were on the neonatal ward, awaiting discharge to relatives or foster care, with or without their mother. Others were in Special Care Baby Units, withdrawing from drugs. The difference between the samples here might, in part at least, reflect the timing for starting proceedings: some children will have moved out of hospital and into foster care before that happens.

Court orders sought on the children27

The local authorities were seeking an interim care order (ICO) in more than two-thirds of the FDAC cases and in nearly all the comparison cases. In each sample this order was most commonly requested when the plan was for either foster care or a mother and baby residential parenting assessment.

An interim supervision order (ISO) was sought for just over a quarter of the FDAC children but in only one comparison case. In over half of these FDAC cases the order was sought to underpin a plan for the child to remain with their mother or parents. In such circumstances, the comparison authorities tended to apply for an interim care order instead.

In three cases in each sample the local authority did not seek an interim order initially. This was because the parent was not contesting the other elements of the plan for the child at that stage.

Table 15: Court orders and placements sought at the start of proceedings – FDAC

FDAC sample ICO ISO No order Not

recorded Total

Foster care 36 [47%] - - - 36 [47%]

Friends and family 5 [ 6%] 6 [ 8%] 2 [ 3%] - 13 [17%]

Mother & baby

placement 1 [ 1%] - - - 1 [ 1%]

No removal from parent 4 [ 5%] 10 [13%] - - 14 [18%]

Residential 8 [10%] 1 [ 1%] 1 [ 1%] - 10 [13%]

Not recorded 1 [ 1%] - - 2 [ 3%] 3 [ 4%]

Total 55 [71%] 17 [22%] 3 [ 4%] 2 [ 3%] 77 [100%]

Table 16: Court orders and placements sought at the start of proceedings – Comparison

Comparison sample ICO ISO No order Not

recorded Total

Foster care 30 [61%] - - - 30 [61%]

Friends and family 7 [14%] 1 [ 2%] - - 8 [16%]

Mother & baby

placement 2 [ 4%] - - - 2 [ 4%]

No removal from parent 2 [ 4%] - 2 [ 4%] - 4 [ 8%]

Residential 2 [ 4%] - - - 2 [ 4%]

Return home 2 [ 4%] - - - 2 [ 4%]

Not recorded - - 1 [ 2%] - 1 [ 2%]

Total 45 [92%] 1 [ 2%] 3 [ 6%] - 49 [100%]