The criminal law and child neglect: - Action for Children

What do police officers and social workers think?Action for Children held a number of focusgroup discussions with social workersand police officers to explore front-lineunderstanding and use of the currentcriminal law on child neglect. The groupsalso discussed the proposed alternativeoffence as above.The current offenceThe main concern raised by social workerswas that the current offence limits the extentto which police are able to respond in casesof non-physical neglect. They reportedthat police generally only intervene whenthere is tangible physical evidence, and thatthere are obvious different definitions ofwhat constitutes neglect between the twoagencies. The involvement of the police incases of neglect is seen as positive, whetheror not a prosecution is pursued, to reinforcethe need for changing behaviour.The police reported that the term ‘wilful’ isa significant barrier to prosecuting casesof neglect, being very difficult to prove andcreating confusion amongst some officers.None of the police officers taking part infocus groups were aware that ‘wilful’ hadbeen legally interpreted to mean ‘reckless’by the Sheppard ruling (as described above).Instead, one officer described his practicalunderstanding of ‘wilfully’ in these terms:‘The ’33 Act relates to a time when somany children were neglected because ofpoverty, which is why they needed to include‘wilfully’. It’s not relevant today.’The police shared the frustrations of socialworkers about not being able to intervene,and that this is directed by the limitationsof the current offence because it does notinclude non-physical harm. As one officerput it, neglect can only be acted upon whenit has led to physical harm ‘like an accidentor a child burning itself’. 3333To some extent, the views reported at the focus groups demonstrate a misunderstanding of the current offence, inparticular where police officers did not recognise that it covers prospective physical harm.14.