Editorial

The issue opens with the findings of an evaluation by Pamela Cox of initiatives, introduced since 2011, by local authorities and voluntary agencies in England, to support mothers whose children have been removed into care. Whilst, existing research reveals that one in four such women are subject to further removals following subsequent pregnancies (Broadhurst et al., 2015), Cox’s evaluation indicates that personalised, strengths-based interventions can significantly reduce the likelihood of rapid repeat pregnancy and recurrent care proceedings. Applying a mixed methods approach and drawing on a rich literature on psychologically informed interventions, this study also offers some methodological insights into how we can evidence individual empowerment in such cases.

Continuing with the theme of empowerment through participatory practice, Jackie Sanders’ article reflects on the impact of reforms to child protection legislation in New Zealand which has sought to place children, young people and their families at the centre of decisions about interventions and resources. Consistent with the critique of Cox, Sanders’ analysis illustrates how empowering relationships are the cornerstone of effective work with young people and their parents. This is particularly important in child protection interventions where a widespread reluctance to engage with child protection staff is borne out of poor communication, lack of consistency in personnel, and a perceived lack of cultural and contextual sensitivity. Again, the data informing this project is drawn from a mixed methods study on youth resilience and risk conducted in New Zealand between 2009 and 2013.

The article by Josefine Nyby et al. reflects critically on the motivations underpinning recent childcare reform in Finland. Finland is renowned for its innovative policies on childcare which are defined by a genuine freedom to choose between paid work (supported by free access to public childcare) and the right to stay home to care for children under three (supported by a child home care allowance). Unsurprisingly, this choice has become increasingly politicised in the wake of the global economic crisis, with those from both ends of the political spectrum suggesting that the current system compounds unemployment, places an undue burden on the public purse and reinforces gender inequality. Such debates resonate with those in the UK, particularly during the recent general election with childcare featuring heavily in both the Labour and Conservative campaigns. The introduction of 30 h of free childcare for three and four-year-olds for working parents from September 2017 (a 100% increase in the current offering) is a welcome development in a country with the notorious reputation for having the most expensive childcare in the world (OECD, 2016). The courts have also been doing their bit to promote flexibility in employment and care provision for parents with young children: on 22 June 2017, the High Court ruled that the policy of capping benefits for parents out of work is unlawful for lone parents with children (The Queen on the application of DA and others and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Shelter, [2017] EWHC 1446 (Admin)).

Moving to the Irish context, Lydia Bracken’s article examines the content and scope of the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015, a flagship instrument that places a variety of ‘non-traditional’ and previously ignored family forms on a statutory footing. The recognition of gay and lesbian couples as joint legal parents is a particularly welcome feature of the legislation, but the actual framing of same sex couples’ status, the author argues, still privileges a heteronormative (two parent) model, with specific, adverse implications for the children of such couples.

The final article, by Ian Loveland considers the impact of the UK Supreme court interpretation in Hotak v Southwark London Borough Council (Equality and Human Rights Commission and others intervening) [2015] UKSC of the notion of ‘vulnerability’ under English housing law. Whilst, the decision potentially widens the range of those who may succeed in a claim for priority social housing, it achieves less than one might have hoped in addressing some of the ambiguities and complexities of this area of social provision.

Helen Stalford
[email protected]