5. Memorandum from ATD Fourth World
Introduction—A Human Rights Approach to Poverty
Poverty is a global problem. Even in the UK,
a country with a modern and prosperous economy, thousands of families
are living in persistent poverty. From one generation to the next
they have been cut off from the rest of society, unable to secure
their basic rights to health, education, employment and culture.
ATD Fourth World is a human rights organisation
taking a holistic approach to poverty eradication, member of International
Movement ATD Fourth World, an NGO with consultative status with
Ecosoc, Unesco, Unicef, ILO and Council of Europe.
We believe that only by working in partnership
with families experiencing poverty and social exclusion can real
and effective change come about in the lives of those most disadvantaged.
It was founded in 1957 in Noisy-Le-Grand—an emergency housing
camp on the outskirts of Paris. The founder, Joseph Wresinski,
had a personal experience of poverty. He worked to see assistance
replaced by long-term partnership and dependence replaced by dignity.
ATD Fourth World works in partnership with people
to empower them to participate fully in community life and to
develop their abilities. People and families living in poverty
are at the heart of our work and also provide an essential contribution
to its development. They directly inspire the work undertaken
and are very involved in the planning, implementation and monitoring
of the programmes as well as regularly participating in discussions
with policy-makers at local, national and international levels.
Poverty is now widely recognised as a multi-dimensional
problem. Over the long-term, disadvantages such as illiteracy,
poor housing, unemployment and family break-up accumulate and
compound one another. This is why we deem poverty itself to be
a violation of human rights.
In its call for evidence, the committee asks
in what areas does a lack of guarantees, which the enshrining
in UK law of the covenant could provide, lead to a lesser or unsatisfactory
protection of economic, social and cultural rights. In our evidence,
we have chosen to highlight areas relating to poverty and social
exclusion that are of most concern to ATD Fourth World members
living in poverty. This particularly covers article 10 of the
Convention concerning protection of the family.
Article 10: Protection of the Family, Mother and
Children
In this section, we would like to bring to the
Committee's attention some concerns ATD Fourth World has regarding
the right of people in poverty to live as a family in the UK.
For many years, families that ATD Fourth World
has come into contact with have lived with the fear of their children
being taken into care due to the intervention of local authority
Social Services. It is accepted that families living in poverty
are over represented as users of children and families services.
For example Thoburn et al's (2000)[18]
study found that 98% of families whose children were at risk of
suffering emotional maltreatment or neglect were characterised
by the extreme poverty of their material environment. Poverty
remains the key indicator associated with children becoming looked
after by local authorities. Bebbington and Miles (1989)[19]
graphically illustrated the links between poverty and children
coming in to the care system by demonstrating that children living
in poverty are 700 times more likely to become looked after. Ivaldi's
study (2000)[20]
on adoption found that 89% of birth mothers whose child was subsequently
adopted were not working when a decision was made that it was
in their child's best interest to be adopted. Only 3% were employed
in either professional managerial or skilled occupations.
This contradicts the Covenant, which indicates
in article 10, paragraph 3: "Special measures of protection
and assistance should be taken on behalf of all children and young
persons without any discrimination for reason of parentage or
other conditions." Evidence clearly demonstrates that children
are discriminated against by being removed from their birth parents
due to their social origin.
The problem of the over-representation of families
from a background of poverty as social services' clients is exacerbated
by the lack of understanding and proper partnership between the
two parties. The resulting lack of cooperation from parents stems
from a legitimate fear of being embroiled in child protection
investigations, even if there is genuine support needed and possibly
available. One young mother told ATD Fourth World:
"I was in absolute terror for the first
six months. I even used to avoid the health visitor because I
just didn't want anything on record anywhere to say I'd had this
baby." [21]
The consequences of this can be care orders
being placed on children, leading to children being fostered or
adopted. Policy Forums organised by ATD Fourth World inviting
parents with experience of poverty to speak about issues around
care and adoption demonstrated many such examples. These are cases
where children have not been physically, sexually or emotionally
abused (where real abuse has occurred, ATD Fourth World regards
as imperative the need to protect the child and find solutions).
ATD Fourth World is particularly concerned of
the consequences the recently passed Adoption and Children Act
may have on the poorest and most excluded families. By the Government's
own admission, the care system is seriously failing children.
The proposed answer has been to promote adoption as a permanent
solution for looked after children. The Adoption and Children
Act will set adoption targets and fast track the adoption process,
thus reducing the time children spend in foster care.
ATD Fourth World regards the Adoption and Children
Act as a potential threat to the right that all families have
to be protected and assisted as a "natural and fundamental
group unit of society". This Right is stated by the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in article 10,
paragraph 1 and also by the UK Human Right Act (1998) which guarantees
in Article 8 the right to respect for private and family life.
Indeed, speeding up the adoption procedures
will make it much harder for birth parents to have a second chance
to be reunited with their children and live as a family. The acceleration
of the adoption process may mean that the position of birth parents
comes under increased pressure.
"I made one mistake and I lost my children
for 18 years. I got 18 years of punishment. Even murderers don't
get a life sentence like we do"[22]
The Adoption and Children Act assumes that Social
Services are being adequately resourced to carry out the necessary
preventive family support work and partnership work, as required
by the Children Act (1989). The reality, based on evidence that
we have from birth parents is very different and points to a system
which fails birth parents, and their children, living in poverty.
Research by Barnardo's[23]found
that, with adequate resourcing and support, birth families could
be supported in maintaining themselves and keeping the children
within the family.
Adoption is a drastic measure with far-reaching,
lifelong implications for the adopted child and the birth parents.
Research has shown that maintaining contact can contribute to
the stability of placements and that children can maintain attachment
to a number of adult/parental figures[24]Complete
severing of all links to a member of the birth family should only
happen when he or she has been the perpetrator of sexual abuse,
or when the child so wishes. Also, in the best interest of the
child contact must be maintained between siblings where their
separation has been unavoidable. The Adoption and Children Act
makes no specific provision for contact following adoption, as
practised in some parts of the United States and Australia. We
would urge the Committee to ask the UK Government to carefully
consider the implication of the Adoption and Children Act, particularly
in the light of research and practice in other European countries,
notably Sweden and France, which suggests that promotion of adoption
by the UK Government risks rejecting rehabilitation too soon[25]
(Warman A & Roberts C, Adoption and Looked After Children:
International Comparisons, Family Policy Studies Centre, 2001).
Conclusion
ATD Fourth World believes that the Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights greatly enhances the right
of the poorest and most excluded children and their parents in
the UK to protection from being forcibly separated. Incorporating
the Covenant into UK law would give families experiencing poverty
and social exclusion a guarantee and arm to defend themselves
against their greatest fear: that of having their children removed
into care or adoption.
To give weight to this need, the European Parliament's
recent report on the human rights situation in the European Union
states that it:
"Considers that the placing of children
in care solely on the grounds that they are living in extreme
poverty constitutes a violation of fundamental rights."
[26]
We believe the evidence presented in this submission
shows categorically the link between long-term poverty and the
removal of children into local authority care and adoption. Any
means that can protect the right of all families, including those
experiencing persistent poverty, to a private family life should
be maximised. In this the Joint Committee on Human Rights has
a real opportunity to vastly improve the lives of many thousands
of families who live with this fear on a daily basis as a result
of their deep poverty and social exclusion.
April 2003
18 Thoburn, J, Wilding, J & Watson, J (2000) Family
Support in Cases of Emotional Maltreatment and Neglect. London,
The Stationery Office. Back
19
Bebbington and Miles (1989) "The background of children who
enter local authority care." British Journal of Social
Work, 19, no 9. Back
20
Ivaldi, G (2000) Surveying Adoption, London, BAAF. Back
21
From an ATD Fourth World Policy Forum, 2002. Back
22
Ibid. Back
23
After Adoption (1998), "Still Screaming: Birth parents compulsory
separated from their children", pp114. Back
24
McCroy R, (2001), Seminar Presentation, London. Back
25
Warman A & Roberts C (2001). Adoption and Looked After Children:
International Comparisons, Family Policy Studies Centre. Back
26
European Parliament (2001), Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and
Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, Article 91. Back
| 
