Private and public voices: Does family group conferencing privilege the voice of children and families in child welfare?

This article examines the use of family group conferencing in child protection and considers its ability to privilege the voice of children and families who reach the attention of statutory child protection services. The family group conference (FGC) is a process of family decision-making in child protection, originally developed in Aotearoa New Zealand, and now practised in many countries including the UK. Examining the literature and research relating to the FGC it considers whether the approach provides a genuine context of participation and partnership, or whether it has become an instrumental professionally led practice as families are charged with greater responsibilities for children at risk.     

The Climbié Inquiry - Context and Critique

The inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié was portrayed as the most wide-ranging inquiry into failure to protect a child. It was instrumental in the development of the new safeguarding agenda and joined-up children's services in the Children Act 2004. Both its process and outcome appear to fit with New Labour's agenda for joined-up government. A social constructionist analysis reveals it as a narrower project which ignored key issues and failed to make links between government policy, the law, and local authority action. Three issues -i) parental responsibility, ii) treating intra-family child abuse as a crime, and Hi) local authorities' responsibilities for family support -exemplify the inquiry's restrictive approach and the impossibility of joined-up services if central government seeks to retain authority without taking responsibility. Despite its success in changing policy, the Climbie Report shows again the inadequacy of such inquiries as a basis for reform.