Neuroscience and child protection

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/27/neuroscience-and-child-protection

theguardian.com
Neuroscience and child protection

The contribution of neuroscience to our understanding of human development is in its early stages (Written on the brain, Zoe Williams, 26 April). Its current contribution is heavily linked to existing frameworks developed and articulated over the last 75 years. The first is that family life and parenting from day one are crucial and the qualities associated with that are well understood. It has driven the UK's childcare policy to stop caring for children in institutions – something that still happens in many other countries. The second is that we are social beings and the relationships we make are key to sustaining us in addressing life's challenges. Family life is at the centre of these. Thirdly, human beings are extraordinarily adaptable and our survival has depended on that – it is unhelpful for any theory to appear to trap individuals in their early experiences alone.

The article raises questions about the contribution that neuroscience makes to children who become the responsibility of the state due to abuse and neglect. The challenge of using what we know through research and evidence to ensure this highly vulnerable group are afforded the same opportunities for their development as any other children couldn't be more pressing. Neuroscience can make – and is making – its contribution, but society now has generations of expertise and experience in what counts. We all must ensure that this continues to drive and is resourced in current policy and practice.
John Simmonds
Director of policy, research and development, British Association for Adoption and Fostering

• Zoe Williams raises interesting points in her attempt to cast doubts on current neuroscience which seems to show that the neural connections in brains of infants are enhanced if the babies are nurtured by a parent figure who is attuned to their needs, and conversely, in the absence of such nurturing care, babies will lack empathy, will develop more slowly and may be more likely to become part of the criminal population.

My own view, from more than 50 years working with children and families, is that neuroscience is now giving credibility to observation and research over the years, from the experiment with baby monkeys which showed that they thrived better when in contact with a "nurturing" soft mother than with a harsh mother, through John Bowlby's observations of babies in nurseries to day-to-day examples of the animated responses of babies who are in securely attached and attuned environments. From these observations, it seems that all very young mammals thrive if they can attach in their early years, to a nurturing and attuned adult.

Neuroscience seems to be confirming that this is so, and that this is necessary for the babies to reach their full potential. The damage caused by neglect in the early years is not irrevocable – therapeutic reparenting can enable the adult to learn to overcome their emotional and social difficulties. And, yes, helping the parents of neglected children should always be the first port of call.
Pat Brandwood
Alderholt, Dorset

• Most reputable neuroscientists would agree that research linking early experiences to specific brain developments is still itself in its infancy, and cannot be used as diagnostic of individual cases. It is an unfortunate consequence of family proceedings taking place in closed courts that journalists cannot attend them to know what actually goes on there. However, after three decades' involvement in child protection law, my accumulated experience tells me that early lack of good-enough parenting can and does leave a lasting mark on a child's later development, whether or not this is currently evidenceable by neuroscientific research.

Furthermore there undoubtedly is, sadly, a clear statistical link between poor parenting and poverty, probably for two reasons. One is that being a good parent is easier when you have more resources to back you up: there is considerable objective evidence that seriously harmful physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect of children is more prevalent in families for whom life is harder. (Interestingly and in contrast, sexual abuse rates are remarkably constant across all social classes.) Secondly, and maybe more importantly, there are a small number of adults in this country who are not very good at anything – not at parenting, not at adult friendships or relationships, not at holding down a job nor paying their rent reliably. Inevitably, wherever these people started on the socioeconomic spectrum they then drift to the bottom, and become the stereotyped single parents struggling to cope in poor circumstances. Again, in my professional experience, I have not met many whose lack of interpersonal skills of all types cannot be attributed to a lack of adequate parenting when they themselves were very young.

So placing children for adoption instead, as early as is feasible, may be harsh, but it's currently the best way we have of interrupting this cycle of inter-generational deprivation.
Sylvia Triandafylla
Diptford, Devon