Search

Background: Local multi-agency case reviews are regularly held in England when children have suffered significant harm from abuse or neglect, including from child sexual abuse (CSA). Most CSA takes place within families, is common but under-reported and can cause long-term harm., Objective: The aim was to analyse English child protection reviews relating to intrafamilial CSA to identify improvements for professional practice., Participants and Setting: Local Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews (LCSPRs) and Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) relating to serious incidents of intrafamilial CSA occurring between 01 April 2017 and 31 March 2020., Methods: LCSPRs and SCRs were obtained from the National Case Review Repository and thematically analysed., Results: There were 243 reviews, of which 25 featured intrafamilial CSA. The main themes related to perpetrators, vulnerable families, and professional practice. Half of perpetrators were known by services to have previously abused children, but issues with professional practice enabled them to continue. Most children did not disclose CSA verbally showing challenging or sexualised behaviour; but professionals lacked knowledge and confidence on how to intervene without verbal disclosure, which limited safeguarding actions. Non-engagement by families with services was common, with some non-abusing parents complicit in abuse and deception. Significant neglect occurred in half the families, which diverted professional attention away from CSA., Conclusion: CSA is deliberate abuse of children involving considerable deception by perpetrators in contrast to some other types of child abuse. This difference in abuser behaviour makes child protection more difficult, particularly when professionals do not recognise and respond to children's non-verbal disclosures., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Garstang, Professor Dickens and Professor Taylor were all funded by the Department for Education for their analysis of Local Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews and Serious Case Reviews. The funder requested an analysis of intrafamilial CSA in Serious Case Reviews, but had no role in the design, analysis, reporting or decision to publish this paper. Ms. Menka has no declarations of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This international comparative paper examines how child protection workers in four countries, England, Finland, Norway, USA (CA), involve children in decision making regarding involuntary child removal. The analysis is based on 772 workers' responses to a vignette describing preparations for care order proceedings. We examine children's involvement along three dimensions including information given to the child, information gathered from the child, and opportunities for their perspectives and interests to be considered. Results show that child protection workers weigh children's involvement differently based upon age. Staff in the four countries were more likely to talk with an older child, to provide information, to gather information, and to include in relevant decision making if the child were 11 compared to five in our vignette. Although the Nordic countries and England provide policy guidance regarding children's role in child protection decision making, we did not see consistently higher indicators of children's involvement from the respondents in these countries. Using child protection system frames to analyze the findings did not produce consistent differences between the family service systems and child protection systems included in this study. Findings highlight the wide range in practices concerning children's involvement in decision making, and the wide space for professional discretion in implementing practice with children at the local level., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)