Seeking peace, justice and wellbeing: why I believe we should stay in the EU

I have just returned from an inspiring 3 days at the Soria Moria conference centre in the hills above Oslo. Over more than ten years now I have had the privilege of joining a supportive and pioneering group of practitioners, academics, bereaved parents and support groups from Scandinavia, Europe and further afield for this conference on sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). I always come away with new ideas and fresh enthusiasm, having heard from others about some of the latest research, discussed challenging cases, and considered how we can best work to support families and prevent the horror of unexpected child deaths. There is a spirit of collaboration, humility and learning that pervades the conference and I have no doubt this has led to some major advances in our understanding and direct benefits to children and families around the world.

The conference centre at Soria Moria takes its name and logo from Theodor Kittelsen’s dramatic painting of the poor boy, Halvor, knapsack on his back, gazing off into the distance, far, far away where Soria Moria Palace shimmered like gold: a vision of a brighter, better future.

Far, far away Soria Moria Palace shimmered like gold - by Theodor Kittelsen — Far, far away Soria Moria Palace shimmered like gold – by Theodor Kittelsen

The EU referendum

So what has all that got to do with the forthcoming referendum? Perhaps because the spirit of collaboration, humility and learning I have experienced at Soria Moria captures so much of how I think we should be living together in our increasingly globalised society, and that the vision of a brighter, better future captured in the fairy tale of Soria Moria embraces some of the key values that I believe should underlie our considerations of whether to leave or remain in the EU: values of peace, justice and wellbeing.

“The Union’s aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.” – Treaty on the European Union

Peace

Since the end of the Second World War in 1945, we have experienced an unprecedented 70 years of peace in Europe. While that peace clearly cannot be attributed solely to the presence of the European Union, it seems to me that the formal agreements forged between the constituent countries have at least contributed to that peace, and certainly have done nothing to undermine it. We are blessed by an incredible level of security and safety in our countries, and I am grateful to all those who contribute to this. And there are very real threats to that security, not least the ongoing threats of terrorist groups who operate across all borders, as well as potential threats from nearby countries. It seems to me that a united Europe is a much stronger counter to those threats, with all the advantages of shared security, information transfer, and collaborative rather than competitive security forces.

“The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.” – Treaty on the European Union

Justice

The very basis of the EU, as stated up-front in the Treaty on the European Union, is respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. These are values to which all of us should aspire. It worries me when our government talks of opting out of the European Convention on Human Rights, as though we are somehow above respecting such rights. It seems to me that our membership of the EU has helped promote rights for children, women, workers, minority groups, and those who are most vulnerable. We need to continue to fight for justice and equality and should welcome and work with all those who share such values.

Justice extends too to our planet, and care for the environment. Here, too, it seems that the EU has been a significant driving force in promoting environmental sustainability, green energy, and care for creation. Once again it seems that we are in a stronger position to promote that in a united way.

“The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.” – Treaty on the European Union

Wellbeing

Much of the debate between the two sides in the referendum seems to have focused on the economy, with both sides promoting scare-mongering predictions, based on rather tenuous speculation. I think this is a great shame, as economic wellbeing is just one part of wellbeing, and so much is uncertain either way. It seems to me that the only certainty is that if we leave the EU there will be a period of economic and political instability during which fresh treaties and agreements will need to be made with each of the other member states. The only people likely to benefit from this seem to be the already wealthy bankers, stockbrokers and lawyers.

Nevertheless, economic stability is a component of the EU treaty promoting a social market economy, employment, social progress, and free trade. Again, these seem to be worthwhile goals.

But there is so much more to wellbeing: healthcare, education, research, diversity, culture. All of these are promoted within the EU treaty, and it is hard for me to see why we should argue against them.

“The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.

It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.

It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.

It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.” – Treaty on the European Union

So, motivated by what I consider to be basic values of justice, peace and seeking the common good, for ourselves and for our neighbours, I will be voting to remain on the 23^rd June.

“In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.” – Treaty on the European Union

May 31, 2016

“What’s natural about a healthy person dying?” Making sense of the inexplicable.

“I know they are saying natural causes but what’s natural about a healthy person dying?” – bereaved mother

In spite of huge advances in research and policy, our understanding of the many genetic, biological and environmental factors contributing to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) remains partial. Over 200 babies in this country die suddenly and unexpectedly each year. This is far fewer than the thousands who died in such ways during the 1980s, and largely attributable to recognising and tackling environmental risk factors such as unsafe sleep. Nevertheless, each one of these deaths is devastating and we owe it to parents and families to do everything we can to prevent them.

One of my PhD students, Jo Garstang, has just published some of her research based on interviews with bereaved parents, listening to their experiences and how they understood their infants’ deaths.

Parental understanding and self-blame following sudden infant death: a mixed-methods study of bereaved parents’ and professionals’ experiences

Working with Jo over the past few years has given me the opportunity to reflect on my own experiences with bereaved families.

It seems to me that there are three basic drivers underlying how we grieve, which I like to think about in terms of saying goodbye, moving forward, and making sense.

Saying goodbye captures the expressive aspects of grieving, encompassing the various ways in which we express the pain and hurt we feel; moving forward, the restorative aspects – those actions that allow us to move on with life, recognising that our lives have changed, but need to carry on. This is not letting go or moving on as though the loss we have been through has not happened, but rather holding the pain that we feel as a part of our lives as they now are, yet not being crippled by it.

The third aspect, making sense, overlaps with both of these and it seems to me, is a central part of all grieving. Whenever we lose someone through death, we need somehow to make sense of that, to find a narrative that helps us to understand and live with the pain. And this is never more so than in the untimely death of a child.

“No parent should have to bury their child.” – King Theoden, Lord of the Rings

One of the greatest needs of the bereaved parents I have met is a need to explain and make sense of their grief. Different families approach this need in different ways, but one of the key findings from Jo’s research was that many parents construct a narrative of blame. Several families expressed their frustration at not knowing why their baby died, and the powerlessness that imposes.

“An unexplained death by its nature is an unpredictable event rendering the parents powerless to prevent future tragedies, thus increasing the anxiety and grief.”

In response to this, some parents blame themselves for their child’s death, and end up carrying a huge burden of guilt on top of the grief with which they are already living. Others seek to blame others – health professionals, police officers, other family members – for their baby’s death or for what happened afterwards. All of this provides a frame of reference within which the family can make some sense of their grief, and both say goodbye to their child and start to move forward.

“Self-blame can be a normal part of grieving after infant death: by blaming oneself for the death, it stops being a random, unexplained event, and can be controlled, giving a sense of order; this situation may be easier to live with.”

However, while blame, whether self-blame or blaming others, may help ease some of the pain and helplessness of unexplained grief, it seems to me that in the long run this is counterproductive and ultimately works against fully saying goodbye and moving forward.

In contrast to those families who seemed stuck with narratives of blame, some families in Jo’s research neither blamed themselves, nor anyone else, for their child’s death. It seems to me that this provides a resolution: an understanding that makes sense, and enables a healthy saying goodbye and a way to move forward. Some of these parents were able to accept the way in which different environmental factors may have contributed to their child’s death without having to live with perpetual guilt over it. Such an acceptance provides hope: for any future children, it means there are things the parents can do to reduce the risk of death.

And so, one of the key findings from this research is that we owe it to parents to be honest, even when that might be painful. It isn’t easy to discuss with parents how their actions, such as smoking or falling asleep on a sofa with their baby, might have contributed to their child’s death. But if we do so frankly yet with compassion, it seems to me that we can move beyond an unhelpful and patronising attitude, to one which truly supports parents at a difficult time and enables them to grieve, positively.

“We should acknowledge that risk factors may not be easily modifiable, but this should not stop us sharing the information with parents, to help them understand more about why their child died and to assist them in making informed choices with subsequent infants.”

You can read Jo’s research paper online at:

Parental understanding and self blame

May 28, 2016May 28, 2016

Plain packaging of cigarettes: Good news for children and families

The 19^th of May this year was a good day for individuals, children and families in this country and potentially around the world.

In a landmark ruling in the High Court, Mr Justice Green dismissed a legal challenge by the world’s four biggest tobacco manufacturers to stop the introduction of plain packaging of cigarettes in this country.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Green pointed out the weaknesses of the evidence put forward by the tobacco giants, and emphasised the damaging impact of tobacco marketing on both individuals and on our country:

“In the United Kingdom alone, 600 children every day are initiated into smoking. These are the future customers of the tobacco industry… [smoking generates] a vast financial burden for the state in terms of medical and care costs and it imposes, for those who succumb to tobacco-related illness, pain and suffering.”

This is a huge step forward. There seems to me little doubt that the tobacco companies themselves were convinced that branded packaging encourages more people to smoke, otherwise they wouldn’t have fought the ruling so vehemently. As one cigarette packet designer pointed out:

“A cigarette package is part of a smoker’s clothing, and when he saunters into a bar and plunks it down, he makes a statement about himself. When a user displays a badge product, this is witnessed by others, providing a living testimonial endorsement of the user on behalf of that brand and product.”

The UK now joins Australia and France in banning all branded packaging. Ireland, Hungary, Norway, Canada and New Zealand are set to follow.

Let’s hope the momentum will grow, and the tobacco companies and those who own and direct them will be increasingly exposed for the greed and indifference that compels them to keep producing and marketing their products, fully cognisant of the grief and suffering they bring.

May 25, 2016

Child Sexual Exploitation: marginalised perspectives and temporal shifts

‘They can show some love or caring, instead of this “we’re moving you there”. They need to stop moving people around like bags of rubbish nobody wants’

Christina, 21

That quote was taken from research with young women who had been in Local Authority care that is featured in the latest virtual issue of Child Abuse Review. The researchers from London Metropolitan University drew their findings from life story interviews with 14 young women, and point out the cultures and systems that made them vulnerable to sexual exploitation.

Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) is not a new phenomenon, but we are, perhaps, just starting to get to grips with the extent of the problem and what we can do about it.

Our guest editors, Caroline Bradbury-Jones and Jenny Pearce, have drawn together 9 papers on CSE published in Child Abuse Review over the past 25 years. They point out some of the achievements that have been made in both policy and practice to better understand the nature of the abuse and protect children from it. However, as they point out, there is still a lot to be done to raise awareness with families and communities about the nature of CSE, to train staff in identifying indicators of CSE, to improve information sharing between professionals working in different disciplines, and to work for more child-centred practices and coordinated interventions between statutory and voluntary service interventions.

All the papers in this virtual issue are freely available online for a limited period along with Caroline and Jenny’s helpful editorial. Do take a look.

‘In all, the articles in this virtual issue show us how far research, policy and practice has moved in advancing the protection of children from CSE over the last few decades. They also remind us that research can, and does, helpfully inform policy and practice but that recommendations from the work and dissemination of findings is important to effect change. The articles also bear ongoing resonance with current issues, many of which need further development of the evidence base and improvements in policy and practice. We look forward to such future activities to further protect children from CSE in the future.’

Contents of the Virtual Issue on Child Sexual Exploitation

Bradbury-Jones C., Pearce J. 2016. Child Sexual Exploitation: marginalised perspectives and temporal shifts

Ireland K. 1993. Sexual exploitation of children and international travel and tourism. Child Abuse Review 2(4): 263-270.

Lillywhite R, Skidmore P. 2006. Boys are not sexually exploited? A challenge to practitioners. Child Abuse Review 15(5): 351-361.

Ward J, Patel N. 2006. Broadening the discussion on ‘sexual exploitation’: ethnicity, sexual exploitation and young people. Child Abuse Review 15(5): 341-350.

Scott S, Harper Z. 2006. Meeting the needs of sexually exploited young people: the challenge of conducting policy-relevant research. Child Abuse Review 15(5): 313-325.

Coy M. 2009. ‘Moved around like bags of rubbish nobody wants’: how multiple placement moves can make young women vulnerable to sexual exploitation. Child Abuse Review 18(4): 254-266.

Melrose M. 2013. Twenty-First Century Party People: Young People and Sexual Exploitation in the New Millennium. Child Abuse Review 22(3): 155-168.

Dodsworth J. 2014. Sexual Exploitation, Selling and Swapping Sex: Victimhood and Agency. Child Abuse Review 23(3): 185-199.

Brayley H, Cockbain E. 2014. British Children Can Be Trafficked Too: Towards an Inclusive Definition of Internal Child Sex Trafficking. Child Abuse Review 23(3): 171-184.

Ahern E, Sadler LH, Lamb MEL, Gariglietti G. 2016. Wellbeing of Professionals Working with Victims of Child Sexual Exploitation. Child Abuse Review.

May 18, 2016

Safeguarding Children’s Oral Health and Wellbeing

This month marks the tenth anniversary of the publication of a great training manual and online resource for dental teams in recognising and responding to concerns about abuse and neglect.

I had the privilege of working with a great team of dentists and others to pull together Child Protection and the Dental Team (http://www.cpdt.org.uk/) and it has been encouraging to see how it has been used across the country. The lead author, Jenny Harris, has recently pulled together a virtual issue of Child Abuse Review, freely available online, to highlight the ongoing needs to safeguard and protect children’s oral health and wellbeing. This was launched at the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry’s inaugural Stakeholder Day last week in London.

As Jenny points out in her editorial, this is about more than simply recognising when children’s oral health needs are being neglected, but also about awareness of wider patterns of neglect, and of the much broader public health issue of promoting good oral health and wellbeing.

Untreated dental disease not only causes pain and infection but also has an insidious impact on children’s growth and development and interrupts their play, education and social interaction.

The virtual issue consists of 9 papers covering issues specific to dental practice, as well as some wider articles considering different aspects of abuse and neglect and how we work with these. It is our hope that these papers will be of interest, not just to dental practitioners, but to all who share our concern for protecting children and promoting their health and wellbeing. Do take a look.

Children’s Oral Health and Wellbeing: Table of Contents

An overview and pilot study of the dental practitioner’s role in child protection. Cairns A, Murphy M, Welbury R. (2004) Child Abuse Review 13(1): 65–72

An audit of a child protection basic awareness programme within the dental hospital setting: are we effective or not? Soldani F, Robertson S, Foley J. (2008) Child Abuse Review 17(1): 55–63.

Clinical Audit of Children’s Missed Dental Appointments in a City-Wide Salaried Community Dental Service in Relation to Guidance on When to Suspect Child Maltreatment. Harris JC, Firth LM, Chadwick BL. (2015) Child Abuse Review Early View: 16 Nov 2015

Child abuse, child protection and disabled children: a review of recent research. Stalker K, McArthur K. (2012) Child Abuse Review 21(1): 24–40.

Resistant Parents and Child Protection: Knowledge Base, Pointers for Practice and Implications for Policy. Tuck V. (2013) Child Abuse Review 22(1): 5–19.

Why Have We Made Neglect So Complicated? Taking a Fresh Look at Noticing and Helping the Neglected Child. Daniel, B. (2015) Child Abuse Review 24 (2): 82–94.

Early indicators of child abuse and neglect: a multi-professional Delphi study. Powell C. (2003) Child Abuse Review 12(1): 25–40.

Red skies, risk factors and early indicators. Sidebotham P. (2003) Child Abuse Review 12(1): 41–45.

The Contemporary Politics of Child Protection: Part Two (the BASPCAN Founder’s Lecture 2015). Parton N. (2016) Child Abuse Review 25(1): 9–16

May 14, 2016May 14, 2016

Big Tobacco: absolving the corporate conscience

After my enraged outburst against the seemingly callous indifference of the big tobacco companies to the immense suffering they cause to millions of families around the world, I decided I should do a bit more than just rant and rave.

So, taking a deep breath, I wrote to the chairs of the boards of the two big UK based companies, inviting them to come with me to meet some bereaved parents whose babies died suddenly and unexpectedly and for whom, their own addiction to cigarettes was undoubtedly a contributory factor. I didn’t expect anything great, but I felt that maybe, if they did accept and were to hear, first hand, these families’ stories, maybe, just maybe, it might touch something.

Richard Burrows: Chair of Board of Directors, British American Tobacco

Mark Williamson Chair of Board of Directors, Imperial Tobacco

As I looked, on their websites, at the ordinary, human faces of the directors of these companies, I felt once more saddened and angry: surely, these were normal human beings, just like you and me, with friends and families whom they loved and cared for. And yet, somehow, these people could sit in their offices and corporate board rooms, thinking about profits and marketing strategies and all the other things that directors think about, while blocking off the death and suffering their products are causing.

After a long gap, I did hear back from the head of corporate affairs at British American Tobacco. Not surprisingly, they turned down my offer for a meeting with bereaved parents. As they pointed out, it is probably ‘not appropriate for us to play the role of adviser on public health issues.’

“We clearly acknowledge the reported risks related to smoking while pregnant and explicitly endorse the advice of health professionals such as yourself to refrain from smoking during pregnancy. We also agree that people should not smoke in the vicinity of children.”

– British American Tobacco

Imperial Tobacco has remained silent.

So does acknowledging the risks absolve the corporate conscience?

And meanwhile, while hundreds of babies die as a result of exposure to parental cigarette smoke, and millions worldwide suffer and die of diseases caused by tobacco, the corporate giants will continue to manufacture and promote their wares.

This coming week, the High Court in London will rule on a challenge by British American Tobacco PLC, Imperial Tobacco Group PLC, Japan Tobacco International and Philip Morris International Inc. against the UK parliament’s vote to ban branded packaging of cigarettes. If the High Court rules in favour of the government, this will come into effect in May next year, marking a huge step forward in the battle against tobacco, and following Australia who went that way in 2012 and have since seen smoking prevalence decline from 19.4% to 17.2% (with a quarter of that decline being attributed to the introduction of plain packaging).

I don’t know how much the court case will have cost, but I suspect it is not unreasonable to guess that hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been spent in fighting the challenge, money that could, instead, have been invested in health, education or welfare. And that, too, makes me angry.

May 9, 2016

Confessions of a coffee addict

Recently I came across a wonderful sign in a café window in Durham: a simple flowchart gave you options for what to do depending on whether or not your life is good at the moment.

If your life is looking good, they recommend coming in for a cup of coffee…

If your life is not looking good, they recommend… coming in for a cup of coffee!

It is a philosophy of life that appeals to me:

Living in the moment
Savouring what is good
Enjoying company
Pausing and slowing down

A global Coffee Culture

However, somehow in all that, I have to live with the fact that coffee has its down-side.

I recently read an article about shade-grown coffee. Since the 1980s, global coffee consumption has increased year-on-year, as we have seen a growing culture of coffee-drinking. It now stands at over 150 million 60kg bags of coffee per year and is growing at a rate of 2.5% per year. In order to feed this insatiable demand, more and more coffee is being grown in big plantations. Like so many other aspects of our consumer culture, this is damaging the environment, leading to further destruction of the rain forests, dehydration and acidification of the soil, and the use of large quantities of fertilizers and pesticides.

So I know I really should stop drinking it.

But I really do enjoy a good cup of coffee.

How to keep drinking coffee while not contributing too much to the destruction of our environment

So, in my usual manner, wanting to have my cake (or cup of coffee) and drink it, I have gone for a compromise.

Since January, I have cut down my coffee drinking to no more than 2 cups a day. And I have managed to stick to that, and with it, I think I am feeling better and craving coffee far less.

I also decided to write to the two companies from which I buy most of my coffee beans: Sainsbury’s and Taylors. I had helpful responses from both, perhaps not surprisingly pointing out that the solution isn’t totally straightforward.

Taylors’ coffees gave a particularly helpful response, pointing out the different ways in which they are striving to ensure both social and environmental sustainability through their coffee production.

Much of the coffee we buy from Central America is shade grown, but in Africa this is much less common. We have been working in Uganda prototyping an approach with around 6000 smallholder farmers that is promoting shade grown coffee (amongst other good agricultural practices) in an effort to increase quality, productivity and provide some defence against increasingly unpredictable weather patterns. Over the last 4 seasons we have seen some remarkable farm improvements and are looking to take this approach to other countries we buy from – but the social and economic benefits to farming communities will always have to match the environmental impacts for us to continue promoting this and in some areas this may not be so clear cut.

Taylors of Harrogate

So, while I am not ready yet to give up my coffee entirely, I will continue to pursue my reduced-consumption approach, and I will strive to buy only coffee that is both Fair Trade and Rain Forest Alliance certified, to do my bit to promote both social justice and environmental sustainability.

And, right now, I might just go and make a couple of nice flat whites (Taylors’ Lazy Sunday blend) and sit out in the garden with Lois to enjoy them.

The Rainforest Alliance do not stipulate shade grown coffee as part of their standard and they certify both shade grown and full sun grown coffee; however, their standards include pretty comprehensive criteria on ecosystem conservation, wildlife protection, water conservation, soil management and other environmental sustainability issues on the farm. Taylors are buying both shade and sun grown coffee. The long relationships we have with our coffee farmers are based on quality first, but with a mutual commitment to balancing economic, social and environmental improvement – prioritising one over the other is less about our own stance on the environment and more about the real needs of the communities we are sourcing from.

Very often, by building projects that address an economic or social need we achieve environmental improvements as a by-product. For example, by funding biogas digesters on smallholder coffee farms in Africa we have provided families with a clean and constant source of energy to cook with, lighting at night time, improved income, saved huge amounts of women’s time and improved respiratory health – the project is also combating deforestation, reducing greenhouse gases that would otherwise be adding to climate change and producing an organic compost for the farm… but these are secondary benefits to the socio-economic impacts.

Taylors of Harrogate

May 4, 2016

What Helps Children and Young People Move Forward Following Child Maltreatment?

‘It is known that some young people show remarkable resilience to very negative experiences. For others, however, alongside a broad range of multiagency interventions, appropriate individual/family psychological support and therapeutic approaches are desirable and/or necessary to facilitate recovery and prevent a severe impact on the function and quality of victims’ lives.’ – Catherine Hamilton-Giachritsis

Our latest, themed, issue of Child Abuse Review focuses on a number of different interventions for children and young people following child maltreatment, and presents a positive picture of what can be done to help them move forward. Central to any effective intervention is an approach that learns from and engages with the ‘experts by experience’: both children and young people affected by abuse and neglect, and their parents. As Catherine Hamilton-Giachritsis points out in her accompanying editorial, two themes coming across in the included papers are ‘the role of parents, including communication style, warmth, sensitivity and responsiveness’ and ‘hearing the voices of young people’.

While the full articles are only available to BASPCAN members and subscribers to the journal, all abstracts can be accessed freely online.

Themed Issue on Interventions following child maltreatment. Child Abuse Review, 2016, 25:2

Table of Contents

Editorial: What helps children and young people move forward following child maltreatment? Catherine Hamilton-Giachritsis

Intervening with severely and chronically neglected children and their families: The contribution of trauma-informed approaches. Tristan Milot, Diane St-Laurent, Louise S. Éthier

Predictors of group treatment outcomes for child sexual abuse: An investigation of the role of demographic and abuse characteristics. Atara Hiller, Craig Springer, Justin Misurell, Amy Kranzler, Shireen Rizvi

Turning it around: What do Young women say helps them to move on from child sexual exploitation? Philip Gilligan

Head Start’s impact on cognitive outcomes for children in foster care. Kyunghee Lee

When preschool is not enough: Head Start and foster care (Invited Comment). Adam J Zolotor

Interrupting the intergenerational transmission of violence. Keri L.M. Pinna

Book Reviews and Training Updates

Practitioner toolkit: Getting it right for children and families affected by parental problem alcohol and drug use (Training Update)

FGM aware: Sara’s story (Training Update)

Attaching through love, hugs and play: simple strategies to help build connections with your child by Deborah D Gray (Book Review)

Treatment of child abuse: Common ground for mental health, medical and legal practitioners (2^nd Edition) edited by R. M. Reece, R. F. Hanson and J. Sargent (Book Review)