Some cookies used are essential to providing a service, while others help us improve your experience and provide us with insights into how the site is being used.
For more detailed information about the cookies we use, see our Cookies page.
Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.
We'd like to set Google Analytics cookies to help us to improve our website by collecting and reporting information on how you use it. The cookies collect information in a way that does not directly identify anyone. For more information on how these cookies work, please see our 'Cookies page'.
We'd like to allow Social Media cookies to provide a richer experience. These cookies will allow us the ability to list Fife Council tweets and Facebook posts, Google maps, audio clips & Videos on some of our pages. Our videos use Youtube's privacy-enhanced mode.
These cookies allow us to show relevant adverts to the content you are viewing. They also provide the ability to deliver targeted online advertising across other platforms like Facebook, Google, Instagram and the Quantcast network.
Practitioners need to be able to distinguish between being judgemental and making evidence based, ethical professional judgements on behalf of children.
The following lays out practice insights into issues that practitioners face when working with infants, children, young people and families where neglect may exist.
The "rule of optimism" in child protection refers to the tendency of professionals to be overly optimistic about a situation, even when evidence suggests otherwise, potentially leading to inadequate protection for children (Kettle & Jackson 2017).
"Start Again Syndrome" in child protection refers to a tendency for practitioners to disregard or minimise a child's history when assessing or intervening in a case, often leading to inadequate protection (Brandon et al 2018).
This is closely allied to the rule of optimism. Drift can be identified as a loss of interest or loss of purpose in a particular case, and it is a particular danger in long term cases of neglect where much of the necessary work may be repetitive. Drift can manifest as delays in assessments, planning, and decision-making, resulting in children remaining in unsafe situations for longer than necessary.
Practitioners may over-identify with parents/carers and where this happens, they risk losing focus on the child’s lived experience. Robust challenge of observed concerns may then be avoided by practitioners who over emphasise parental strengths and engagement. (Aberdeen City CPC).
Practitioners may possess a tendency to adopt beliefs that match their preferred views and therefore gather or recall information in a biased manner, resulting in underestimating the risk to a child.
It is dangerous to assume that the provision of material resources will alleviate neglect. This may on occasion be necessary and appropriate part of a plan of work, but it may also be an inappropriate alternative to challenging more fundamental problems in patterns of care and family relationships.
Practitioners need to be mindful of where parents give the appearance of cooperation which results in false perceptions of progress. This can manifest as:
By saying: 'if you just do the things in the support plan then you’ll be rid of us and you can get on with your life' this means for a family that any changes they are making are only being done because ‘it says so on the plan' and they are not sustainable as families do not see deeper purpose for change.
Practitioners must actively exercise professional curiosity and seek evidence-based outcomes to substantive parent/carers claims and explanations (NSPCC 2025).
To learn more about Professional Curiosity view the following animation. Thank you to Scottish Borders for sharing.
