articulated in the name of social justice) over the imposition of tight timescales. January 2016 ushered in the announcement of further reforms to adoption law to achieve an increase in numbers. The inference being that we most definitely need more. The action plan for the implementation of the family justice reforms was the establishment of a and the production of a set of knowledge reviews to guide judicial ‘knowledge hub’, decision making. Decision-making within a timeframe: an overview of current child’s research evidence for family justice professionals concerning child development and the (hereafter abbreviated to by Rebecca Brown impact of maltreatment “A Child’s Timeframe”) and Harriet Ward (Brown and Ward, 2013) of the University of Loughborough, was one such review and made extensive use of neuroscientific claims. The report was commissioned by the Department for Education and the Family Justice Council. It explicitly stated its purpose as for family justice It contains a number of ensuring ‘consistent training... professionals’. strands, and neuroscience figures strongly in its core argument: namely that for ‘time frames intervening... are out of kilter with those of the child’ (p8). As family lawyer, Eddie Lloyd Jones (2013) noted in the journal shortly after “Family Law”, the publication of ‘A Child’s Timeframe’: An email circulated by a designated family left no one in any doubt as to the judge…. status of this document. All needed to be familiar with its contents upon which courts were likely to place The report is used in judicial training ‘considerable reliance’. … and one participant has already observed that it is treated as ‘completely authoritative’ (Jones, p1053) At this point, we review events which took place at the time, as we were involved in a debate with the shortly after its publication. The controversy that followed are report’s authors worthy of examination in its own right, attesting to the fact that debates about parenting, childhood vulnerability and state arouse the passions. Here we focus on the argumentation within the review, on our counter argument, and the case mobilised in the response from the that followed. Our summary of the debate provides evidence of the report’s authors difficulties besetting the search for solid ground on which to base complex professional judgements about children deemed to be at risk, and illustrates the effects of the neurobiological way of thinking. Contending the Core Story
articulated in the name of social justice) over the imposition of tight timescales. January 2016 ushered in the announcement of further reforms to adoption law to achieve an increase in numbers. The inference being that we most definitely need more. The action plan for the implementation of the family justice reforms was the establishment of a ‘knowledge hub’, and the production of a set of knowledge reviews to guide judicial decision making. Decision-making within a child’s timeframe: an overview of current research evidence for family justice professionals concerning child development and the impact of maltreatment (hereafter abbreviated to “A Child’s Timeframe”) by Rebecca Brown and Harriet Ward (Brown and Ward, 2013) of the University of Loughborough, was one such review and made extensive use of neuroscientific claims. The report was commissioned by the Department for Education and the Family Justice Council. It explicitly stated its purpose as ensuring ‘consistent training... for family justice professionals’. It contains a number of strands, and neuroscience figures strongly in its core argument: namely that ‘time frames for intervening... are out of kilter with those of the child’ (p8). As family lawyer, Eddie Lloyd Jones (2013) noted in the journal “Family Law”, shortly after the publication of ‘A Child’s Timeframe’: An email circulated by a designated family judge…. left no one in any doubt as to the status of this document. All needed to be familiar with its contents upon which courts were likely to place ‘considerable reliance’. The report … is used in judicial training and one participant has already observed that it is treated as ‘completely authoritative’ (Jones, p1053) At this point, we review events which took place at the time, as we were involved in a debate with the report’s authors shortly after its publication. The controversy that followed are worthy of examination in its own right, attesting to the fact that debates about parenting, childhood vulnerability and state arouse the passions. Here we focus on the argumentation within the review, on our counter argument, and the case mobilised in the response from the report’s authors that followed. Our summary of the debate provides evidence of the difficulties besetting the search for solid ground on which to base complex professional judgements about children deemed to be at risk, and illustrates the effects of the neurobiological way of thinking. Contending the Core Story
8554316.docx