Category: Family Policy and Child Welfare

Children’s voices, family transitions and everyday care – chairing sessions at ICFC 2025

Posted on by amy.woolford

Dr Gözde Doğanyılmaz-Burger, Senior Research Coordinator at the University of Bristol, reflects on the sessions she chaired at the first International Child and Family Conference held in Bristol on 17-19 June, and the questions those sessions set out to answer:

  • How are children’s voices recognised (or dismissed) in legal, policy and everyday decisions that shape their family lives?

  • How do caregiving expectations, policy design, and labour markets affect family life and gender equality?

 

Session 1: Children’s agency, participation, and family transitions

On day two of the conference, I had the pleasure of chairing and presenting in a powerful session on Children’s Agency and Participation, a topic close to my heart and the focus of my PhD research.

The session featured four studies that offered unique insights into how children’s voices are heard (or silenced) in matters that deeply affect them:

Children’s experiences of parental separation
Dr Susan Kay-Flowers explored 25 years of international research on children’s experiences of parental separation, highlighting ethical dilemmas around participation and voice.

Father-child contact after domestic violence
Prof Simon Lapierre and Ms Naomi Abrahams shared findings from Canada on children’s participation in decisions about father-child contact after domestic violence, proposing information as a critical fifth dimension to Lundy’s model.

Children’s rights and family law
Prof Maebh Harding and Dr Jakub Pawliczak challenged us to rethink constitutional conservatism in Ireland and Poland and asked whether children’s rights can drive more inclusive family law.

Communication during divorce
And I presented my research comparing young people’s experiences in Türkiye and England, focusing on how communication (or lack of it) during divorce shapes their emotional wellbeing, agency and rights.

Each presentation sparked important questions about children’s legal, psychological and emotional needs, and how research, policy and practice can respond more meaningfully.

Thank you to the presenters and all who joined the discussion. It was a joy to be part of this international conversation on centring children’s voices in family transitions.

It was extra special to share my findings on Turkish and English young people’s experiences of divorce-related communication, and to have my main supervisor, Prof Debbie Watson, whose guidance has been invaluable throughout my PhD, in the room, along with my mum Prof Nesrin Özsoy-Bür, who travelled all the way from Türkiye to support me (especially with childcare!).

 

Session 2: Care, family policy, and the everyday experiences of work-life balance

On the final day of the conference, I had the privilege of chairing another incredible session, this time focused on care, family policy, and the everyday experiences of work-life balance.

It was a joy to listen to such rich, thought-provoking presentations that explored how policy, labour markets, and social expectations shape caregiving, while also highlighting the voices, presence, and roles of children and families so often left out of mainstream narratives.

Caregiving responsibilities and gender inequality
Ms Curran McSwigan (Deputy Director of the Economic Program at Third Way, USA) presented a powerful analysis of how caregiving responsibilities continue to drive gender inequality in the US labour market, particularly for women without a college degree. Her research reminded us how the absence of robust childcare and paid leave policies contributes to ongoing cycles of disadvantage for women and children.

Work-family reconciliation policies
Dr Manisha Mathews (University of Birmingham, UK) critically examined the UK’s work-family reconciliation policies, arguing that current policy design still reflects the “male breadwinner” model and limits fathers’ ability to participate in childcare. Her comparison with the Nordic model underscored the value of long, well-paid leave for both parents in promoting children’s cognitive and emotional wellbeing.

Home as both the family and work hub
Dr Jana Mikats (Webster Vienna Private University, Austria) introduced the concept of dense, intimate knowledge, referring to children’s deep, nuanced awareness of their parents’ work when that work is done at home. Her ethnographic study of Austrian families challenged traditional boundaries between “work” and “family”, offering a fresh lens on intimacy, co-presence, and children’s everyday lives in digitally shaped households.

In our discussion, we reflected on how policy and discourse often centre around nuclear, heterosexual, two-parent families, excluding the lived realities of single-parent households, blended families, grandparents, friends, and broader networks of care. There was a clear call to recognise and support the many ways care is provided beyond dominant family models.

I’m grateful to have chaired such a thoughtful and intersectional session and for the opportunity to connect research across disciplines and contexts.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Rethinking parenting, care and children’s roles in society: keynote speeches from ICFC 2025

Posted on by amy.woolford

The first International Child and Family Conference took place at the University of Bristol from 17 to 19 June 2025. It brought together experts in childhood and family to explore a range of current themes across its three days. Within this, the three keynote speeches focused on some of the key areas from a research and policy perspective.

Dr Gözde Doğanyılmaz-Burger, Senior Research Coordinator at the University of Bristol, gives a summary of each of the inspiring and thought-provoking keynote speeches at the conference.

 

Prof Esther Dermott on the impact of digital technology

We kicked off the International Child and Family Conference 2025 with a thought-provoking keynote by Prof Esther Dermott (University of Bristol Pro Vice-Chancellor for the Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences), who challenged us to rethink how digital technologies are shaping families, relationships and parenting.

She asked us to consider:

  • What does co-presence look like in a world of constant digital communication?
  • How do state systems, private companies, and invisible data processes (like predictive analytics) influence parenting and family life?
  • Are our existing social science tools enough, or do we need new methods to make sense of a digitally entangled world?

From Yondr phone pouches promoting “smart-free” childhoods to Studybugs apps tracking school absence for health outcomes, Prof Dermott highlighted the double-edged nature of digital tools: supportive on one hand, but deeply entangled in systems of oversight and inequality on the other.

Prof Dermott encouraged us to shift away from narrow ideas of “good parenting” and move toward a relational approach, recognising the complex, dynamic interactions between children, parents, institutions, and technologies.

An inspiring way to start the conference, with big questions to think about over the next two days!

 

Mr James Bury on the care system in England

On day 2, we were pleased to welcome James Bury, Interim Managing Director of CoramBAAF and Coram Family & Childcare (UK), as our second keynote speaker. He offered a thought-provoking reflection on the care system in England.

Drawing on his practice experience, Mr Bury questioned whether the complex systems we’ve built truly align with children’s needs and how we can better support permanence through psychological, legal, and physical stability.

He highlighted four key pressures:

  • Declining foster carer numbers
  • Challenges in adopter recruitment
  • Complexities in post-adoption contact
  • The impact of education and mental health support on placement stability

Mr Bury urged us to innovate, simplify, and collaborate, ensuring our systems are responsive to the real journeys of children and families.

 

Prof Tatek Abebe on the ‘commons agenda’

We began the final day of the conference with a powerful keynote from Prof Tatek Abebe (NTNU), Centre Convenor and an expert in childhood studies and development research with a focus on African contexts.

Prof Abebe drew us into a “commons agenda”, a perspective that sees children not just as individuals but as active contributors to collective life in their communities through social labour, care, and cultural practices.

Prof Abebe explored how children’s “living labour” in domestic work, communal exchanges, and even music activism creates value, resists structural violence, and forms part of shared social economies.

He introduced Mahiberawi Nuro community networks in Ethiopia as living examples of communal support systems beyond state provision, embodying what he called “commoning”.

He advocated for ecologically regenerative, decolonial research methods that foreground children’s relational existence, encouraging us to rethink childhood studies through a moral, institutional, and ecological lens.

Prof Abebe’s keynote challenged us to expand how we understand childhood, embracing collective responsibility, ethical solidarity, and research that honours children’s active roles in shaping community life.

 

Thank you to our three keynote speakers for their fascinating insights which gave all of us attending the opportunity to reflect on these topic areas and on our understanding of the issues, and the implications of these, in relation to our own areas of research and policy.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Independent living in private gardens – an idea to reduce the risk of youth homelessness

Posted on by amy.woolford

By Dr Jon Symonds and Dr Vicky Sharley

Some young people could avoid becoming homeless if they had the opportunity to reside in an independent living unit situated in their household garden. This was the finding of a recent study by members of the Children and Families Research Centre, working in partnership with the youth homelessness organisation 1625 Independent People. (more…)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Baby box: child welfare experts say use of sleep boxes could potentially put infants’ lives at risk

Posted on by School for Policy Studies

Baby box: child welfare experts say use of sleep boxes could potentially put infants’ lives at risk

The baby box in Finland is embedded as part of the maternity system.
Kela

Debbie Watson, University of Bristol; Helen Ball, Durham University; Jim Reid, University of Huddersfield, and Pete Blair, University of Bristol

Having a baby can be expensive. So it’s maybe not surprising that many retailers around the world have cottoned on to the success of Finland’s baby boxes – a package aimed to set up new parents and their bundle of joy. The Finnish boxes include baby clothing, sleep items, hygiene products and a parenting guide –- as well as a “sleep space” for the baby.

Many retailers around the world are now offering similar boxes for expectant parents. Indeed, research conducted at the University of Tampere in Finland suggests there are variants in over 60 countries. This includes Scotland’s baby box scheme – with all newborn babies getting a free baby box from the Scottish government.

But as a group of child welfare experts, we believe imitations of the Finnish boxes could be placing babies at risk. This is because it has become common to believe that if babies sleep in these boxes, it will help protect them from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Unfortunately, the research does not back this up.

Mother and fathers in Finland are given a baby box from the state that functions a bit like a starter kit. The box includes 64 items and is estimated to cost around €140 (£119). It comes as part of a wider maternity package in Finland, in which parents are also required to register for a health check before the fifth month of pregnancy.

They can opt for a cash alternative of €170 instead of the baby box, although most choose the box. The maternity package has been offered by the Finnish government for over 50 years, and initially arose as a response to poverty and high infant mortality rates.

The Finland baby box for 2019.
Kela

What’s the problem?

To some extent, retailers in other countries have tried to copy the Finnish model. In the UK, new parents can choose between paying for bigger baby boxes or a free box with some basic items if they engage in an online course. The course doesn’t have much professional oversight, however, and these boxes certainly don’t contain as much as the Finnish version.

But there is a danger that parents might view the boxes as a safe sleep space that will help reduce the risk of SIDS. This sort of belief appears to be based on the fact that the SIDS rate in Finland has fallen over the years – but this does not appear to be because of the boxes.

The same reduction has been found in neighbouring countries such as Norway and Sweden, where baby boxes are not used. The handful of observational SIDS studies conducted in Finland do not mention the box and largely attribute the lower mortality rates to “a reasonably high standard of living, good educational level of mothers, well organised primary maternal and child health services, and the rapid advances in obstetric and neonatal care equally available and regionalised”. All three Scandinavian countries have in place a well supported welfare system that looks after vulnerable families.

As far as we can see, there is no evidence to support a belief that the box can be used as a safe space to reduce infant death. There are also already safe sleep spaces for babies, with cots and Moses baskets that have a safety kite mark readily available.

And with baby boxes being sold by private companies – and public health messaging moving into private hands as a result, the risk is that the impact of government risk reduction campaigns that have saved thousands of young lives in recent decades are forgotten.

What new parents should do

All the evidence-based guidance that has emerged over recent decades delivers clear messages about safe sleeping practices, while also acknowledging that parenting practices can be culturally diverse – in many cultures, for example, co-sleeping is the norm until children are weaned.

The importance of robust evidence must be a key priority. This is why we believe governments and health providers should consider these factors before assuming that baby boxes are the solution to ongoing tragic unexplained deaths of infants.

Look for the kitemark when buying a sleeping space as it confirms that the British Standards Institution has tested a product and found it meets a particular standard.
Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock

Crucially, research is needed on the ways in which parents use existing baby boxes, in what circumstances and contexts they might be beneficial, and whether it is the box, or the programmes around them that benefits families.

As a response to this need, we are starting to work with vulnerable parental groups and health providers in Scotland, Finland, Zambia, Vietnam and Kenya to find out whether baby boxes or alternative devices that can be brought into the parental bed can improve infant safety and survival.

The hope is that our combined research should enable low cost, appropriate solutions to be designed with the people who will benefit – and to improve the health and wellbeing of infants and mothers.The Conversation

Debbie Watson, Professor In Child and Family Welfare, University of Bristol; Helen Ball, Professor of Anthropology and Director of the Parent-Infant Sleep Lab, Durham University; Jim Reid, Senior Lecturer, Department of Education and Community Studies, University of Huddersfield, and Pete Blair, Professor of Epidemiology and Statistics, University of Bristol

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Assessment of Vulnerable Children and their Families – is there a ‘quick fix’?

Posted on by policystudies

Dendy Platt, Honorary Senior Research Fellow, School for Policy Studies, discusses the challenges currently facing professionals involved in the assessment of the needs of children and the increasingly difficult environment in which they operate.

Children in need and child maltreatment can be emotive topics.  A constant question that lurks at the backs of the minds of those of us involved professionally with assessments of the needs of children, is that “someone, somewhere must know more about children and young people than I do”. And that whoever these experts are, they “must surely have the answers to the assessment dilemmas regarding the children I am working with”.

This nagging search for solutions becomes even more acute in the context of the years of austerity measures currently facing the range of services for children.  UK politicians will claim that overall spending on children’s services has gone up in recent years.  However, the greatest part of this increase has been absorbed into funding the growing numbers of children in the care system.  Yet at the same time, and probably contributing to increases in number of children in care, has been a hidden, but very serious decrease, estimated as a 60% spending reduction, in preventive services for children and young people in need (for example, youth services and children’s centres) . Alongside this wholesale withdrawal of support for children in need, child poverty rates have been increasing.  So, with fewer services and more children in need, it is unsurprising that numbers of children in care have been going up.

Whilst local authorities are trying to grapple with the vicious cycle created by this mismanagement of policy, it is also unsurprising that hard-pressed professionals working with children and families would like a ‘quick fix’.  Unfortunately, children and families are complex, and the magical short-cut to accurate decision-making has yet to be identified.  There are, however, some things that professionals might like to think about in this context:

  1. Maintaining a focus on the child is a long-standing principle. Time spent, on understanding the lived experience of the child you are assessing, can lead to better, more thoughtful decisions which save time in the long run.
  2. If you’re looking for a questionnaire or measurement scale, such tools can be helpful, but it is well accepted that they will only contribute to part of the picture. They must not be treated as providing final answers and should only ever be used in conjunction with good professional judgment.
  3. Using professional judgment means making space for thinking.
  4. Slowing down is all well and good in theory, but what if there is too much work? Overwork is a management problem, and ought not to be a problem for the individual professional.  “Some hope”, you might say.  Consider, however, that good, careful thinking and analysis lead to better decisions. And good decision-making means that those decisions stand the test of time.  Decisions that frequently have to be revisited, revised and revamped actually create additional work.

In the new edition of The Child’s World, which I recently co-edited with Jan Horwath, we cover the many different aspects of the assessment of vulnerable children, and professional judgement is a theme which we return to throughout.  It has been written with busy practitioners in mind so that they can dip in to the chapters and quickly access summary information on specific topics, such as Parents with Learning Difficulties, Child Sexual Exploitation, and assessing Family and Community Support.  Easily accessible information such as this can be a useful tool when there is little time for detailed background research.

Visit the JKP website to read an extract from the latest edition of The Child’s World.

The Child’s World launch conference is taking place on 18th March in York and has been designed as a collaborative learning event. Reduced conference fees for students and BASPCAN members are available and all participants will receive a free copy of The Child’s World (3rd edition).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email