ABSTRACT
It became apparent early in the research that there was considerable confusion over the relevant UK policy and legislation. For example, many claimed that their no touching practices were ‘because of the Children Act’ when attempting to justify their risk behaviour (see also Lindon 2004, and Chapter 4). Yet an examination of such legislation clearly showed that it was the welfare of the child that must be of paramount concern. Nowhere could we locate any formal limitation placed on physical contact between children and nonfamily carers. In spite of this, once the legislation and the assumed principles on which it is based are translated into standards and guidelines, problems arise which are further exacerbated by interpretation during inspection processes. Ofsted inspectors, quality assurance officers and child protection inspectors all interpret policy in a variety of ways, and tend to impress upon those responsible for managing child-oriented settings of their responsibility and the need for internal policies and procedures (see Chapter 4). In each of these ‘translations’ the precautionary ethic ensures that the ‘risk’ is added to by being ‘at risk of being at risk’. ‘Playing safe’ strategies lead to an accretion of precautions, resulting in the ‘ratchet effect’ that we note elsewhere. In England, where all our case studies were situated, the key justification for the wariness about touch appears to have come from the Child Protection section of the National Care Standards. This states: ‘it is important that staff avoid putting themselves in a situation that may lead to allegations being made against them’. This ‘Standard’ is clearly and arguably culpably oriented to the protection of the staff rather than the child. It also illustrates well the ‘at risk of being at risk’ logic. But even if it ‘merely’ reflects the current mainstream view and dominant approach and practice, it has clearly impacted on adult/child behaviours in professional and child care settings in a range of ways that our research found to be more negative than positive.
