Marginalized Mothers, Reproductive Autonomy, and ‘Repeat Losses To Care’
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2012.00599.x |
| Published date | 01 December 2012 |
| Date | 01 December 2012 |
JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY
VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4, DECEMBER 2012
ISSN: 0263-323X, pp. 541±61
Marginalized Mothers, Reproductive Autonomy, and
`Repeat Losses To Care'
Pamela Cox*
Over 70,000 children are `looked after' by local authorities in England
and Wales. Emerging research suggests that a significant proportion of
their birth parents have either already lost a child to permanent
adoption or will go on to lose others. These `repeat loss' cases raise
difficult questions about marginalized mothers and their reproductive
autonomy. This article considers past and present tactics used by the
state in its attempts to limit that autonomy, including institutionaliza-
tion, sterilization, long-acting contraception, and permanent adoption.
It argues that the gradual democratization of intimate citizenship over
the past century, defined as a person's ability to choose and direct
their intimate relationships, has obliged the contemporary state to
develop new tactics which aim to build personal capacity and to
balance enhanced child protection with enhanced reproductive
autonomy.
INTRODUCTION
In 2011, there were over 70,939 `looked-after' children in England and
Wales.
1
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
541
ß2012 The Author. Journal of Law and Society ß2012 Cardiff University Law School. Published by Blackwell Publishing
Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
*Department of Sociology, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester
CO4 3SQ, England
pamcox@essex.ac.uk
I am very grateful for the suggestions and comments offered by members of the
University of Essex's Centre for Intimate and Sexual Citizenship (Sociology) and
Autonomy Project (Philosophy), Hera Cook, Emily Jackson, and anonymous reviewers.
All views expressed here are my own.
1 Department for Education, Looked After Children Statistics (2012), at
www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a00198585/looked-after-children-
statistics-2011>; Welsh Government, Adoptions, Outcomes and Placements for
Children Looked After by Local Authorities, Year Ending 31 March 2011 (2012), at
(Cafcass) reports a growing number of annual local authority care applica-
tions. In 2009±10, it received 8,800 applications representing a 36 per cent
increase on the previous year.
2
This increase has been linked by some to the
impact of the death of Peter Connolly (Baby P) in 2007 and the pressure this
consequently placed on child protection professionals to remove children
from potentially harmful domestic circumstances.
3
Many of these cases will
have involved public law care proceedings, with the children concerned
subject to care orders or child protection orders. Only a minority, around 6 per
cent, of looked-after children are babies under 12 months old.
4
However, as
this article reveals, repeat proceedings involving (half) siblings are common.
Significant numbers of parents lose more than one child to care, many to
permanent adoption, because they unable to look after them safely. In turn,
many of those children go on, as adults, to experience the same cycle.
One case might illustrate this cycle. Jemma (not her real name) is an
articulate woman in her late 20s from Suffolk. Since 2006, she has lost two
sons to permanent adoption and had two terminations. She spent part of her
own childhood in care:
I was first involved with social services when I was 18 months old. There was
a lot of violence around in my family. I became a disruptive child. I put myself
in care when I was 14 so that I could get away. I lived in a children's home and
got into cannabis there. By 15, I was into heroin. After I left the children's
home I was involved with drug dealers and had quite a few violent partners. I
became a prostitute because I was rubbish at stealing. My life was a nightmare
± never enough cash, always scrimping, severely depressed.
5
Jemma has experienced many tipping points in her adult life. The year 2006
was particularly significant for her:
I met a new partner and I got pregnant. Around the same time my mum was
diagnosed with quite a serious illness. I felt it was a really important time for
me to change, to take responsibility for stuff. I didn't tell anyone outside the
family that I was pregnant until I was six months. I didn't want social services
involved. I thought `I'm Jemma, I'm hard, I'll do it myself, like my mum did'.
But I was still using drugs. I couldn't be there for myself, let alone my baby.
My son was born. It was great at first but even then I was sneaking out of the
hospital to take drugs. And then I lost five of the girls I knew from the streets ±
murdered by [the Ipswich serial killer] Steve Wright. Everything fell apart. My
son was taken off me.
542
2 Cafcass, Cafcass Annual Report and Accounts, 2010±11 (2011) 11, at
www.c afcas s.gov .uk/P DF/Ca fcass %20An nual% 20Rep ort% 20%20A ccoun ts%20
2010-11%20web.pdf>.
3 T. Stanley et al., A Practice Framework for Assessments at Tower Hamlets Children's
Social Care: Building on the Munro Review. Practice: Social Work in Action (2012).
4 R. Harker, Children in Care in England: Statistics, House of Commons Standard
Note, SN/SG/4470 (2012), at .
5 Jemma told her personal story at a multi-agency networking event organized by South
Suffolk Pre-Birth Working Group in November 2011, a group discussed in the final
section of this article. These extracts are taken, with her consent, from her account.
ß2012 The Author. Journal of Law and Society ß2012 Cardiff University Law School
To continue reading
Request your trial