Recruitment

The research team in which this study was conducted initially obtained ethical approval for the wider research investigation from the Great Ormond Street Hospital research ethics committee (see copy appended). Moreover, ethical approval was obtained from the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) research group, which examines research projects involving children and young people in local authority care. The criteria for inclusion of children within this investigation was those children and young people who were referred to the Child Care Consultation Team (CCCT) between 1992 and 1995 who were subject to care proceedings under the Children Act, 1989.

Preparation of a court report by a professional from the CCCT about the child’s case was also a prerequisite for inclusion in the study. Based on these eligibility criteria, cases were selected from the CCCT files in chronological date order of the child’s original referral. By adopting these inclusion criteria, it was anticipated that a sample of children and adolescents would be selected who were broadly representative of the severe maltreatment cases which are seen by this specialist child mental health team.

A second researcher from the CCCT was responsible for both social service liaison and recruitment of participants for the entire investigation. This researcher telephoned the social worker named in the child’s file at the time of their referral to the CCCT to ascertain both the case social worker and the child’s current care setting. The researcher explained the general nature of the investigation to the child’s current social worker. The researcher then sent the case social worker a copy of the research investigation protocol and sample information sheets about the study that had been prepared for children and their carertakers (see appendix). The social worker was asked to share this information with their team manager and obtain managerial approval for the child’s participation in the study. Social services approval was obtained to ask twenty-six children and their caregivers to participate in this pilot study. Permission was refused by one local authority to contact an adolescent female in their care because she had recently attempted suicide and was residing in an adolescent psychiatric unit. The researcher then sent the case social worker information sheets explaining the study for both the child or young person and their caregiver together with consent slips (see appendix).

The social worker was asked to visit the child and their caretaker to discuss the research and seek their agreement for participation in the study. The rationale for asking the case social worker to obtain consent from participants on behalf of the research team was that the social worker was a professional who would be known to both the child and caregiver. The research team therefore believed children, young people and their carers would feel more comfortable raising any questions or anxieties with their social worker before deciding whether or not to participate in the investigation.

The case social worker also sought consent for children or young people in care to participate from those biological parent(s) who shared legal responsibility for their child with the local authority. None of the children, carers or parents who were contacted as part of this research project refused to participate. Information concerning participating children and adolescents’ past and current family and placement history was documented from CCCT and social work files. This included child’s age at time of care proceedings, length of time since CCCT assessment, seriousness of maltreatment, number of placement moves, and child’s current care setting.

2.4 Measures

Semi-structured interview with the child or voun^ person

The semi-structured interview used in this project (see appendix) was designed by the CCCT research group specifically to assess children in care’s view of the court proceedings and their current lives. The semi-structured interview included four questions asked of the child or young person:

1. Question one focused on the child’s perception of the three best aspects of their current lives.

2. Question two addressed the child’s level of understanding and attributions as to why they had entered care.

3. Question three assessed the child’s reaction (i.e. angry, sad, worried/scared, didn’t bother me, confused, okay/relaxed) as an indicator of their level of acceptance of the court decision.

4. Question four measured the child’s view of their future relationships and educational/employment prospects in early adulthood.

Interview question one ‘‘Would you like to tell me about three good things you like about your life now” was coded in three ways according to whether the child:

1. Demonstrated a low or high level of meaning about the three best aspects of their current lives.

2. Did or did not mention their current placement. 3. Did or did not mention a hobby or activity.

Question two “As you haven’t always lived here, imagine you had a younger brother or sister who could not remember or understand what had happened, how would you explain to them how it happened that you came to be living here” was coded in three ways according to whether the child;