Catchy Slogans…
Essentially, this blog is about my emotional response to the arguments made by the UK Government in the High Court this week (9th Feb 2022), as to why it believes it only has an obligation to actually care for children who are in the care of the state (many having been removed from the care of their families via court order) until their 16th birthdays. They made these arguments because a small children’s charity, Article 39, had gone to court to argue that children in care should be cared for until they are 18 (the age at which, legally, childhood ends). If you are wondering how the hell we have come to this, then there are links at the bottom of the page that might help explain and also a give sense of why this is so important. Although, you probably already know, because I am likely preaching to the choir.
Anyway, back to that emotional reponse. You will have to forgive the stream of consciousness that follows, I usually pride myself on my articulacy and my ability to organise my thoughts in written English — the fact that I am struggling to now is, I think, revealing:
I don’t particularly like the word “triggering”, or rather I think it is overused and overplayed. I think it is often used to mean “insensitive” or “someone said something that made me feel emotionally uncomfortable”. I don’t think we should expect never to feel emotionally uncomfortable and I don’t think we should always hold other people responsible for our state of mind (bear with me — I’ll get to that court case in a sec).
For example, many times in my life a person I don't know very well, while making small talk, has asked me a question of some kind which assumes I have a relationship with my mother, that I lived with my parents when I was growing up, or such like. These are entirely reasonable assumptions to make — most people grow up being looked after by one or both parents and they continue to have a relationship with them until they die. The awkwardness, the sadness and the shame I experience when these topics come up is no ones fault. Personally, I don’t think this counts as being triggered, and people should be able to have ordinary conversations about family life without having to give a thought to any impact on me.
I suppose this commentary might have alienated some people, I guess too that some of you might think — well, a middle-aged white man would say that wouldn’t he? And maybe you are right, but it is what I think. I am pretty much a walking definition of world weary.
Just as we were coming out of the first lockdown, when we were allowed to go for a socially distanced walk with one other person, I visited my brother and we had a pleasant enough stroll along the beach. Sitting in my car, about to drive home, I impulsively checked Twitter on my phone, and followed a link to an article in which a high profile and influential figure in the world of foster care was quoted as arguing for considerably less oversight and support of foster carers and the children who reside in foster care. I felt a flash of anger and then, without any warning, I realised I was crying, then I started to shake. It was maybe 20 minutes before I was able to drive home. I guess I was triggered.
This response can only have been because, as I have discussed in other blogs, I had very difficult experiences in foster care and it was as if the Charity CEO was arguing that four year-old me should be abandoned to his fate — although this wasn’t a conscious train of thought at the time. I was just angry, crying and shaking. Obviously, the charity boss would argue that this was not the intention of his words, he did not know of my experiences or that I would read the article. Although, I think he has a little more responsibility than my imagined small talker above — not least to think through properly the consequences of his ideas. That said, I still think CEOs of fostering services should be allowed to comment publicly on their ideas for reform of foster care, even if these ideas are stupid and dangerous (perhaps especially so), and even if they upset me.
It is very unusual for me to have such an instant and powerful emotional response. I guess it shows that, even with the passage of 40 years and hundreds of hours of therapy, somethings never leave you. This was the only time I could recall having this experience. Until last Wednesday. I was at my desk, eating a bland chicken sandwich, and wondering how the #KeepCaringTo18 judicial review was going, so I took to Twitter:
This was the first tweet I saw — part of Ben’s excellent live reporting of the case. Although, at the time, I did not read anymore of the thread, because my hands started to shake, I blinked back tears, worked very hard to stay regulated while putting on my jacket and scarf, and left the building.
I suppose the correct response to “catchy campaign slogan” is “thank you”. It is the purpose of any campaign slogan to succinctly describe the purpose of the campaign in a memorable way, so “catchy campaign slogan” is a compliment, no? Except it wasn’t was it? It was a patronising pat on the head: “there, there children, good effort, but I am afraid you don’t understand the law, leave it to the grown ups”.
(As a side note, and this blog is not intended to be a rebuttal of the legal arguments, The Children Act 1989 uses the word “care” 56 times — I have just checked, also I think if you asked 1000 members of the general public “do you think a child subject to a court mandated care order should be provided with care?” Pretty much all 1000 of them would say something like “doh, obviously” and pretty much none of them would say “can you provide me with a definition of care?” Because we all know what it fucking means. “We all know what it fucking means” is a colloquial phrase that does not reflect the language in the Children Act).
Lawyers enjoy their rhetoric I guess, but they also have to act according to the instructions of their clients. This means that the general thrust of the arguments made were signed off by someone in Government — presumably at the Department for Education. It means people, I don’t know who, maybe some advisors, some civil servants, a junior minister here, a chief social worker there, sat in a room saying things like: “Yeah, but the act doesn’t actually say children have to be provided with care where they live”. And thinking they are ever so clever, when what they should be thinking is “Mother of Christ, what on earth has become of me? I am framing arguments so we can avoid having to care for 16 year olds”. I am not sure the argument holds up anyway, because quite a lot of care orders are issued because children are not receiving good enough care where they live — the word for it is neglect. Which is, of course, what the Government are doing to the 6000+ young people this case is really about (at any given time — the total number of young people effected will be many tens of thousands if Article 39 lose).
It is noticeable that in court, and in wider Government statements, there is no real attempt to explain why some young people need care and some don’t, or to explain who does and who doesn’t — just that accommodation without care is the “best option” for “some” young people. Actually, the only attempt I did see to define this “some” was when a Government minister mentioned unaccompanied minors in the Lords. Let’s call that what it is: unambiguously racist.
The patronising lawyer was right about one thing, in my case at least, I do not fully understand how the law works. But I do understand the needs of children and young people in care, in fact I think I can legitimately claim to be a subject expert. Certainly I understand more than the lawyer does and seemingly more than almost everyone at the DfE. And I can tell you that all of them, 100% of them, need to be cared for. No exceptions, no nuance. If you are reading this and you disagree with me — you are wrong (both intellectually and morally). You do not need to feel any shame, we are all wrong sometimes, but you do need to change your mind.
I have more to say and perhaps I will another time, but for now I must self-soothe with a bacon and egg baguette and pop to Aldi. Take care.
