Can the government ever be Mum or Dad?

Last week a cross-party committee of MPs accused the Government of failing in its duty as a corporate parent to abused and neglected children, and has demanded an overhaul of the system of residential and foster care. Barry Sheerman, Labour MP for Huddersfield and chairman of the committee, said that care must become a “positive experience” for such children, but that “this will only happen if the state can better replicate the warm, secure care of good parents for every child in the system”.

This seems like an admirable goal, and one with which, emotionally, many people will agree. But child protection involves some hard questions; and tough as it is we should ask whether it is ever possible for the care system to “replicate” a warm and secure family in the way these MPs seem to be suggesting. Children’s homes have a difficult history, and foster care is far from easy; doubtless, some things could be done to make these experiences better for children and carers. What cannot be done is to make the “corporate parent” into an actual parent of the “looked-after child”, and it would be dangerous to try.

The reason lies in the phrase “corporate parent”. The relationship between parent and child within a family is an informal one, based on a powerful combination of biological relationship, practical care and an emotional tie. People disagree on the relative importance of these things; to me, the most important is bit is the emotional tie, which means that the relationship between parents and children within families is totally distinct from a professional relationship between paid carer and looked-after child.

This is not to say that care workers or foster parents do not genuinely, personally care about the child they are looking after – many of them really do – but the bottom line is that this is a professional relationship, involving wages (however meagre) and formal rules and regulations. At its best, the experience for the looked-after child can be warm, caring, and altogether more positive than the life he or she had with his family. But because it is a formal relationship, the state can never BE this child’s family.

Knowing the difference between a corporate parent and an actual parent is important as a reminder of why taking children away from their families is such a big deal. Of course, sometimes this is necessary, but it should never be done without very good cause. But it is also important that children in care are given a realistic expectation of what professional carers can give them. Paid carers can provide safety, affection, and even love; but they cannot become replica parents, and it is unreasonable to expect them to do so.

This article first appeared on The Times blog Alphamummy.