A Diversity of Childhoods: Considering the Looked After Childhood

  • Luke Jones
  • Kirsty Liddiard
Chapter

Abstract

  • This chapter centres on the lives of disabled children and ‘Looked After Children’, many of whom are disabled.

  • We ask: Can disabled children’s childhood studies (DCCS) be useful towards thinking about other forms of non-normative childhood?

  • We focus on three areas: (i) surveillance and intimacy; (ii) pathology and psychologisation; and (iii) vulnerability and future.

  • We conclude that DCCS offers new perspectives on the lives of Looked After Children and that it is a framework that can be used to think through other ‘non-normative’ childhoods.

References

  1. Abbott, D. W. F., & Carpenter, J. S. W. (2014). ‘Wasting Precious Time’: Young Men with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Negotiate the Transition to Adulthood. Disability & Society, 29(1), 1192–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beresford, B., Rabiee, P., & Sloper, P. (2007). Outcomes for Parents with Disabled Children, Research Works, 2007–03. York: Social Policy Research Unit, University of York.Google Scholar
  3. Braidotti, R. (2013). The Posthuman. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan, A. (2014). The Experience of Life Story Work: Reflections of Young People Leaving Care (Unpublished D.Clin. Psy. Thesis). Cardiff University.Google Scholar
  5. Burkitt, I. (2012). Emotional Reflexivity: Feeling, Emotion and Imagination in Reflexive Dialogues. Sociology, 46(3), 458–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cabezas, M. (2016). ‘Child Psychological Abuse, Public Health and Social Justice: The Cinderella Law Debate’, In J. Drerup, G. Graf, C. Schickhardt, G. Schweiger (Eds.) Justice, Education and the Politics of Childhood: Challenges and Perspectives. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. pg. 137-153Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, F. K. (2009). Contours of Ableism: Territories, Objects, Disability and Desire. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Children Act. (1989). London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  9. Curran, T., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2014). Disabled Children’s Childhood Studies: A Distinct Approach? Disability & Society, 29(10), 1617–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, L. J. (1995). Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  11. Department for Education. (2013). Children Looked After by Local Authorities in England (Including Adoption and Care Leavers) – Year Ending 31 March 2013. London: Department for Education.Google Scholar
  12. Department for Education. (2015). Children Looked After in England (Including Adoption and Care Leavers) Year Ending 31 March 2014. London: Department for Education.Google Scholar
  13. Ecclestone, K., & Goodley, D. (2014). Political and Educational Springboard or Straitjacket?: Theorising Post/Humanist Subjects in an Age of Vulnerability. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. doi: 10.1080/01596306.2014.927112.
  14. Exley, C., & Letherby, G. (2001). Managing a Disrupted Life Course: Issues of Identity and Emotion Work. Health, 5(1), 112–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Family Law. (2015). UK Children’s Commissioners Urge UK Government to Protect Children from Austerity Measures. Online. Available from: http://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/uk-children-s-commissioners-urge-uk-government-to-protect-children-from-austerity-measures#.VztM8avfDFI. Accessed 3 May 2016.
  16. Fineman, M. (2008). The Vulnerable Subject and the Responsive State. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 20(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  17. Frazer, H., & Marlier, E. (2011). Assessment of Social Inclusion Policy Developments in the EU: Main Findings and Suggestions on the Way Forward. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  18. Goodley, D. (2010). Disability Studies: An Interdisciplinary. London/New Delhi/Singapore: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  19. Goodley, D., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2010). Emancipating Play: Dis/abled Children, Development and Deconstruction. Disability and Society, 25(4), 499–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodley, D., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2011). The Violence of Disablism. Sociology of Health and Illness, 33(4), 602–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodley, D., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2012). Reading Rosie: The Postmodern Dis/abled Child. Educational and Child Psychology, 29(2), 53–66.Google Scholar
  22. Goodley, D., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2014). Becoming Dishuman: Thinking About the Human Through Dis/ Ability. Discourse: Cultural Politics of Education, 37(5). doi: 10.1080/01596306.2014.930021.
  23. Goodley, D., Runswick-Cole, K., & Liddiard, K. (2015). The DisHuman Child. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education: Special Issue: Fabulous Monsters: Alternative Discourses of Childhood in Education, 37, 5. doi: 10.1080/01596306.2015.1075731.Google Scholar
  24. Goodyer, A. (2013). Understanding Looked-After Childhoods. Child & Family Social Work, 18(4), 394–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hiles, D., et al. (2014). “So What Am I?” – Multiple Perspectives on Young People’s Experience of Leaving Care. Children and Youth Services Review, 41, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  27. Holland, S., & Crowley, A. (2013). Looked-After Children and Their Birth Families: Using Sociology to Explore Changing Relationships, Hidden Histories and Nomadic Childhoods. Child & Family Social Work, 18, 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana: University of Indiana Press.Google Scholar
  29. Levinson, J., & McKinney, K. A. (2013). Consuming an Edge: ADHD, Stimulant Use, and Psy Culture at the Corporate University. Transcultural Psychiatry, 50(3), 371–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liddiard, K. (2014). The Work of Disabled Identities in Intimate Relationships. Disability and Society, 29(1), 115–128. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2013.776486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liddiard, K. (2015) Fostering Diary. Personal Account.Google Scholar
  32. Liddiard, K., & Slater, J. (2017). “Like, Pissing Yourself Is Not a Particularly Attractive Quality, Let’s Be Honest”: Learning to Contain Through Youth, Adulthood, Disability and Sexuality. Sexualities. Special Issue: Disability and Sexual Corporeality. Online First.Google Scholar
  33. Macleod, S., Hart, R., Jeffes, J., & Wilkin, A. (2010). The Impact of the Baby Peter Case on Applications for Care Orders, LGA Research Report. Slough: NFER.Google Scholar
  34. Mallet, R., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2014). Approaching Disability: Critical Issues and Perspectives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Mallet, R., & Runswick-Cole, K. (forthcoming). The ‘Urge to Know’ Normal: Theorising How Impairment Labels Function. In R. Mallett, C. Ogden, & J. Slater (Eds.), Precarious Positions: Theorising Normalcy and the Mundane. Chester: University of Chester Press.Google Scholar
  36. Meltzer, H., Gatward, R., Corbin, T., Goodman, R., & Ford, T. (2003). The Mental Health of Young People Looked After by Local Authorities in England. London: HMSO.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Munro, E. (2001). Empowering Looked After Children. London: LSE Research Articles Online. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000357/. Accessed 5 May 2016.
  38. National Children’s Bureau (NCB). (2015). Corporate Parenting Toolkit. Online. Available from: http://www.ncb.org.uk/corporate-parenting/resources/corporate-parenting-tool-kit. Accessed 3 May 2016.
  39. Nicolas, J. (2014). Is new ‘Cinderella’s Law’ on Emotional Neglect ‘Draconian and Unhelpful’? Community Care. Online. Available from: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2014/04/10/new-cinderellas-law-emotional-neglect-draconian-unhelpful/. Accessed 25 April 2016.
  40. Overboe, J. (2004). Articulating a Sociology of Desire Exceeding the Normative Shadows (Unpublished PhD Thesis). The University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  41. Parker, C., Honigmann, J., & Clements, L. (2013). Transition to Adulthood a Guide for Practitioners Working with Disabled Young People and Their Families. Carmarthen: Cerebra.Google Scholar
  42. Phillips, N. (2014). Researching Reform: Cinderella Law – How Might the New Criminal Measures Affect Already Existing Family Legislation? Family Law. Online. Available from: http://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/researching-reform-cinderella-law-how-might-the-new-criminal-measures-affect-already-existing-family-legislation#.VztJNqvfDFI. Accessed 2 May 2016.
  43. Reeve, D. (2002). Negotiating Psycho-emotional Dimensions of Disability and Their Influence on Identity Constructions. Disability and Society, 17(5), 493–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reeve, D. (2004). Psycho-Emotional Dimensions of Disability and the Social Model. In C. Barnes & G. Mercer (Eds.), Implementing the Social Model of Disability: Theory and Research. Leeds: The Disability Press.Google Scholar
  45. Rice, C., Chandler, E., Harrison, E., Liddiard, K., & Ferrari, M. (2015). Project Re•Vision: Disability at the Edges of Representation. Disability and Society, 30(4), 513–527. OPEN ACCESS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ridge, T. (2013). ‘We Are All in This Together’? The Hidden Costs of Poverty, Recession and Austerity Policies on Britain’s Poorest Children. Children & Society, 27, 406–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Runswick-Cole, K., & Goodley, D. (2015). DisPovertyPorn: Benefits Street and the Dis/Ability Paradox. Disability and Society, 30(4), 645–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ryan, S., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2008). Repositioning Mothers: Mothers, Disabled Children and Disability Studies. Disability & Society, 23(3), 199–210. doi: 10.1080/09687590801953937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shakespeare, T., Gillespie-Sells, K., & Davies, D. (1996). Untold Desires: The Sexual Politics of Disability. London/New York: Cassell.Google Scholar
  50. Slater, J. (2015). Youth and Disability: A Challenge to Mr Reasonable. Oxon: Ashgate Publishing Plc.Google Scholar
  51. Smullens, S. (2015). Burnout and Self-Care in Social Work: A Guidebook for Students and Those in Mental Health and Related Professions. Washington, DC: NASW Press.Google Scholar
  52. Sulimani-Aidan, Y. (2015). Do They Get What They Expect? The Connection Between Young Adults’ Future Expectations Before Leaving Care and Outcomes After Leaving Care. Children and Youth Services Review, 55, 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sulimani-Aidan, Y., & Benbenishty, R. (2011). Future Expectations of Adolescents in Residential Care in Israel. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1134–1141. doi: 10.1016/j.chilyouth.2011.02.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taylor, C. (2004). Underpinning Knowledge for Childcare Practice: Reconsidering Child Development Theory. Child & Family Social Work, 9(3), 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. The Fostering Network. (2015). Staying Put. Online. Available from: https://www.thefosteringnetwork.org.uk/policy-practice/practice-information/staying-put. Accessed 2 May 2016.
  56. Thomas, C. (1999). Female Forms: Experiencing and Understanding Disability. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Thomas, C. (2004). The UK Social Model of Disability: Rescuing.Google Scholar
  58. Thomas, C. (2006). Disability and Gender: Reflections on Theory and Research. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 8(2-3), 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Watson, D. (2014) Encouraging Playfulness to Thrive in Children with Profound Impairments: Views from Three Perspectives and a Demonstration of Art Work Produced Using Eye Gaze Technology. Paper presented at ‘There is No Them!’ The 8th Child, Youth, Family & Disability Conference, University of the West of England, 7 and 8 July.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luke Jones
    • 1
  • Kirsty Liddiard
    • 2
  1. 1.Cygnet Health CareBradfordUK
  2. 2.The University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations