Monologue of a corporate parent

Listen in to this imaginary monologue:

“One of my children died today. I don't know the circumstances. I don't know where the death occurred, its cause or even which child it was. I don't suppose that makes me much of a parent does it? 

Still, I do the best I can. There are so many other things I have to think about, more than I can cope with. If I am honest, I haven't seen or even thought about this child since it was sixteen or so. You must think that as a parent I don't seem to care very much. I do care honestly, and I want to care so much more but I simply can’t cope. I know that this child probably never had a job and rarely went to school and I've heard that it used drugs and even served some time in prison!  Terrible, I know, but I believe this child did have somewhere to live - more than many of its siblings have.

I can hear you thinking "What sort of a parent do you think you are that doesn't even know what happens to your kids and just seems to be relieved when they leave home?"

"Well, I am Corporate Parent".

“Being Corporate Parent is a bit different to how you bring up your kids you know. I only have to be a parent until my child is 18 and even then I can normally get out of it sooner. I’m told now that if I place one of my children with a foster carer they might be able to stay there till they're 21."

"What happens to them then?" you ask me.

"Well basically it doesn't matter, because it's no longer my problem. I am busy looking after a whole load of different kids and don’t have the time or the money to look after the ones who have left me. To be honest, I know that many of them fail. I know that some of them end up in prison, or mental health wards. I know that some end up just living on the streets, being exploited or even ‘doing drugs'. OK, I know it is your tax money that pays for my kids, but at least they cost you a lot less when they leave me because you don’t support them anymore, it costs you nothing unless they have kids”.

“What’s that you say? How does that work out then?"

"Well, it starts all over again...I often become corporate parent to their kids and the whole thing repeats itself"

I can hear you now “How can this be? You look after a kid till they're 18 or so, then you throw them out, they fall apart and cost the likes of me a fortune keeping them in jail, or drugged up, or on benefits, they have kids and it all starts over again? What do the kids think?"

"Well, I don't know," I reply, "I haven't ever really asked them."

"What sort of parent are you?" You ask me angrily!

"I'm a corporate parent"

An exaggeration?  Perhaps ..but perhaps not in too many cases. Sadly for many of our children and young people in care, ‘corporate parent’ is a reality. The individuals who make up the corporate parent may care deeply, but the impact of the care experience for too many children mirrors that of the children of our fictional corporate parent above. For many, that monologue equals their truth. The “Every Child Leaving Care Matters” campaign believe that all young people leaving care, whoever they are and wherever they are placed, deserve to be treated equally and fairly, and to be supported to have their needs met until they are at least 21.  Let’s make that corporate parent monologue a thing of the past.

Narey Slams 'lazy philosophy' of Care Home Campaigners

One of the great things about living in a media rich democracy is that people are freely allowed to express their opinions, however well or ill-informed they may be. Perhaps this is surpassed only by the facility to help those expressing opinions that they may have misunderstood something fundamental. The Every Child Leaving Care Matters core group, now happily swollen to eight individuals, fully accepts Mr Narey’s right to express his views and indeed celebrate the fact that he has done so. Perhaps, though, a little clarification may help him or others of similar views become better informed?   

Whilst we are most certainly a group of activists we are by no means political, in fact this campaign is determinedly apolitical as may be considered to be evidenced by some well respected parliamentarians supporting our campaign who generally might naturally move into different lobbies in Westminster at division time.  We have not accused “every member” of the Conservative Party of mendacity. There is a least one among their number who we and others have (rightly) lauded for his public statements and actions in the pursuit of equality opportunities for children in residential care with their peers in foster care. There are others who have chosen to support the campaign less openly, which is perfectly understandable. Let us be unequivocal we have no political allegiance or agenda and those we advocate for don’t even have a vote.

We are actually proud of being activists; we have no illusions of carrying on the tradition of other more famous and worthy activists such as the Suffragette movement, Stonewall, the anti-Apartheid supporters but we can draw inspiration from such magnificent groups in attempt to highlight and right an injustice. Neither is there anything “lazy’ about us including our philosophy which, in connection with our campaign is, we feel, unlikely to be considered as complex or developed  an examination of truth or concepts as perhaps was that of either Nietzsche or Aquinas, for example. We actually all have ‘day jobs’ with which we progress unabated devoting our ‘spare time and energy’ to ECLCM because we believe that we should; it’s really heartening to know that over 5000 people are supporting us in doing so.

A simple message of what this campaign is about for Mr Narey or anyone else who is interested may help – although we have tried to be clear about this before.

We welcome the government’s proposals in respect of children in foster care potentially remaining in their placement until the age of 21; this is an unequivocally good thing. We want the same opportunity to be afforded to children in residential homes.

Mr Narey appears to suggest that we may be critical of what the government has announced as being a “minor development”. Have we said this? No. Have we publicly welcomed this? Yes.

Mr Narey appears to defend Mr Timpson, although we feel sure that he can defend himself, by referencing Mr Timpson’s words “..if I thought that by including children’s homes in staying put arrangements was the right thing to do at this juncture, I would do it in a heartbeat..” We have asked to meet with Mr Timpson so that he can explain to us if not publicly what it is that makes him think it is not the “right thing to do”. He has not taken up the offer. Why is it not the right thing to do Mr Timpson? We ask this for ourselves, of course, and those who tangibly support us but most of all we ask it for the children who we work with, advocate for, represent or in some of our cases remember being. What do professionals working with children in children’s home tell them when they ask “Why are we, why am I different?” We don’t know the answer. We don’t know what to tell those children. Mr Narey, should Mr Timpson choose to talk through you we will listen politely to your answer. We do note that you use the word “we” when referring to the Government so be assured we would accept what you say as being the government’s view and could at least introduce this to the public arena for others to judge.

Mr Narey considers that we are being "inaccurate and unfair" in accusing ministers of being “uncaring” over their reluctance to afford children in children’s homes the identical opportunity to those in foster homes. We are not saying that ministers are “uncaring” per se, but please help us out Mr Narey, why else are these two groups of seemingly identical children being treated differently? Surely any parent of two children would want them to have the same opportunities? If one had two identical twins with identical ability, aims and aspirations and one chose to ask one to leave home at eighteen whilst not the other might one be accused of caring less for one compared to the other? Seems likely to us.

Mr Narey appears to have an ambivalent opinion of our campaign. On the one hand accusing us of an attack on the government whilst later dismissing us as an irrelevance and, we might say, with due respect to all those supportive of our nation of pet-lovers, appearing to draw a comparison between looked after children and kittens. He questions what starting a petition has done for the cause. Well, it was never the intention but it appears to have exercised his mind somewhat. He should not perhaps, dismiss the fact that an unsupported, unfinanced, relatively anonymous group of people who have nothing to gain personally from this campaign have gathered such significant support in such a short time. If we are not having an impact why does he feel the need to insult, dismiss and demean our efforts?

Mr Narey, you are a Government Advisor with, unless we are mistaken, no public mandate.  We are a collective concerned for the welfare of looked after children in general and in respect of children who are or will be leaving children’s homes now and in the future. We seek equality for these children with their peers in foster care. We may in your terms have “resorted to a petition”; what else are we to do? Nothing? At least that petition has given us, unlike you,  a mandate to ask questions not only on behalf of all the children who are now and will in the future be leaving residential care but also over five thousand others.

ECLCM Reply To The Letter From Mr Timpson

On 23^rd January, shortly after the adjournment debate in the House of Commons introduced by Craig Whittaker MP, ECLCM received a reply from Mr Timpson to their letter in December seeking to meet with him.

Mr Timpson raised a number of interesting reasons why he considered that young people leaving residential care could not receive equal aftercare support until they are 21, as the government proposes to do for young people leaving foster care.  We have addressed most of these already, but given Mr Timpson’s letter, it is probably appropriate to do it again.

Mr Timpson states:

“I completely agree with you, therefore, that young people should not feel pressured to leave care prematurely. They need to be consulted and involved in making plans for their futures and should only be expected to move on from their final care placement once they are ready to take this significant step.”

You need to know Minister that this is not happening in a great many cases across the country.  Young people being moved from settled care placements to supported lodgings and other placements when they reach 16+ is common. Even councils who have signed the Care Leavers’ Charter to consult and involve young people are still moving young people before they feel ready. The Care Leavers’ Charter will not work unless it is made statutory.

The Minister adds:

“Research has found that many young people are dissatisfied with the support they receive and, in particular, that there are shortfalls in planning and preparation for leaving care, which leaves their needs unmet.”

As care leavers and people who work with young people in care and care leavers, we would agree with you about this. Too many young people are being compelled to leave care and face the world with little support when they are 16 years old when they are not emotionally or practically able to cope. There is no doubt whatsoever that preparation for leaving care, be that residential care or foster care, needs to be improved and we will support any initiative to do this. We feel that this area for development supports our argument for ongoing support to 21, including remaining in placement where appropriate, for all young people leaving care.

We would go further than Mr Timpson. As we have reported before, national disadvantage statistics related to NEET, homelessness, mental health, custody, etc.  show care leavers are disproportionately represented. This is not because care leavers are necessarily predisposed to failure.  They are not. It is because they are not supported at a critical time in their life when they were facing crisis. 

The Minister has suggested that he will introduce changes “in a heartbeat” when children’s homes are good enough for children to live in. He suggests too many homes are simply not fit for young people to continue to live in without significant changes.

If that were true we would be standing alongside him demanding radical action. However, although there is work to be done, his own watchdog Ofsted in their recent report indicated that 68% of children’s homes were judged to be good or better, and only 8% were judged to be inadequate. This compares very well with the inspection findings of foster care.

Ofsted results suggest there is little problem based solely on the quality of the homes to prevent young people who wish and who would benefit from remaining whilst they gained the emotional and practical skills to become independent, and as the homes improved their own skills in supporting young people into independence.

Mr Timpson identified a practical issue in his letter to ECLCM:

“There would also be practical and legal issues to be worked through if, in the future, there was a duty on councils to fund 'staying put' arrangements for care leavers in homes registered by Ofsted on the basis that they are 'wholly or mainly for children'.”

The ECLCM team acknowledge there are statutory issues that would need to be addressed although we contend that the number of occasions the situation described by the Minister would be few. However, the Minister also pointed out that the problems would not be ‘insurmountable”. We agree and would be happy to support Ofsted to identify and address the issues if we can. We don’t see them as a major obstacle that need cause undue delay in introducing equality.

Mr Timpson added:

“I am aware of the evidence you mention that young people living in children's homes are more likely to make an early transition from care compared to those living in foster care. Many of these young people feel dissatisfied with the support they receive and report being poorly prepared to make their transition to adulthood. My department is, therefore, funding the organisation Catch22 to carry out the two year 'Getting Ready' project in the North West region. This project will identify how to get children's homes to offer high standards of planning and preparation for adulthood and will test out ways of enhancing care leavers' education, training and employment prospects.”

ECLCM have consistently argued that there is much to be done to prepare young people to cope when they leave care. Some of us have had to do it – our experience is first hand. The Minister proposes to have a pilot scheme which is not set up yet but which will run for two years before reviewing and reporting its findings.

It could be many years before the findings of any scheme were acted upon by government – and there is no firm commitment to act on them at all.

ECLCM identify a pressing need for government to take urgent steps now to support young care leavers (from foster care and residential care) who are struggling and facing destitution, poverty and worse as we speak. It can’t wait for years. This needs to happen alongside introducing equal aftercare support for all care leavers to 21. Recent research by the Centre for Social Justice reinforces our concern that urgent action is needed now to support young people leaving care.

Some commentators suggest that Ministers are doing all they can and there is very limited scope to improve the leaving care support arrangements further. They point out that £40 million is already being invested in improved after care support for fostered children.

ECLCM do not accept that. How much is allocated and how it is used is a political decision, not a social work decision within the gift of local councils. We want the same support being given to fostered children for ALL children leaving care.  Not to do so is a political decision based on resource allocation, and government ministers are responsible for that. Failure by politicians to take affirmative action will have a negative and potentially disastrous impact on young care leavers in the community. An unpalatable fact for politicians and their advisors, but nevertheless true. Further, to support one group of care leavers and not another based upon placement only is discrimination. That is the bottom line.  

Mr Timpson declined to meet representatives from ECLCM. That is a pity, because our offer to assist him to support all young people leaving care was genuine. The offer remains on the table. 

Behind The Statistics Are The People....

Most young people look forward to their birthdays most of the time. Many get excited at the prospect of a celebration, perhaps being a bit over-indulged. Some birthdays, are of course more momentous than others we guess 13 is a pretty good one- a teenager, 16 seems to be one that most teenagers look forward to and then there is 18, the coming of age, an adult, able to vote and all those other grown up things but often mainly an excuse for a big bash.

Most of us on ECLM are too old to be sure if 18 is actually the New 21; ‘key of the door’ and all that. What’s this got to do with children in care? Well, the fact of the matter is that at 18 most children in care don’t get the key of the door they get shown the door.

Children in care are, understandably, a rather amorphous body of people to most of the population of this country. They are neither ‘loved nor despised ‘as a group – perhaps and again understandably not even ‘thought of’ or within the consciousness of  the enormous majority of adults and young people who may never have (knowingly)met, or known or come across a looked after child. Actually they probably have.

If they have ever seen someone selling ‘The Big Issue’ in the street, perhaps begging, perhaps bedraggled and off their heads on booze or drugs then statistically they are likely to have been either looked after or they were. But what’s this got to do with birthdays? Because looked after children are all different, because they have no identifiable features, because they often try to hide the fact that they are or were looked after it’s all too easy not to think about them.

Let’s get personal. What follows happened today, Friday 31^st January 2014. It happened to a real looked after child in a real children’s home. Let’s consider the child to be a girl for this piece. She’s not 18 today and we don’t know if she ever will be. She’s had a difficult life – none of it her responsibility.

For a whole range of reasons she’s considered to have mental health problems; in fact she really does have mental health problems but perhaps in another life, with another family, she would not have had them. But she does and this has meant that she has spent all too much of her adolescence locked up for her own safety in a secure hospital. She has a chance though more than a year ago she moved to a children’s home; it’s not been easy for her or anyone else. She has made fantastic progress and has started to enjoy some of the more ‘normal’ things that we take for granted -friends, college, an (albeit limited) social life; by and large no serious attempts to kill herself and manageable (by and for her) degrees of self harm - until last week. Two suicide attempts, two hospital admissions.

Why now? Why after such a long time (if a year is a long time). Today we found out. These are not her exact words we have changed them, but not their content. She is seventeen next week; she said that she knows she will have less than a year in what has become her home, her safe place, her trusted staff team. She knows it’s not long enough and she said she might as well die now as in a year. What do we say? Do you want to move to a foster home because then we might have long enough?

She’s right another year is not long enough to help her put right all that went wrong in the previous fifteen. EVERY CHILD MATTERS not just those for whom fostering is available and the right choice.

Who Are The ECLCM Team?

It’s time for a little introduction to this rather varied and experienced mix of people!

Ben Ashcroft

I am a care leaver, author, advisor, speaker and campaigner.  This is my passion. I work as hard as I can to make a difference with Children in care & those working with Children in care.

I support this campaign because I was that Child in care that I am fighting for. I am now a proud father of one son and I could not ever see him out on the street at 16-18 without support or knowing he can't come home or lend money when he is short. Or if he needed someone to talk too. I know what that feels like and it isn't nice.

It's simple for me. I wouldn't kick my son out at such a young and vulnerable age. And I wouldn't do it to the most vulnerable young people who need that support at such a vital stage in their lives.

I was here from the very start and I will be here at the very end! My passion for this has no limits.

Rosie Canning

I grew up in a lovely house in Muswell Hill, North London. We had two cats Marmalade and Tinkerbell. I had piano and ballet lessons and learnt how to sew. We went to the cinema, theatre and at least twice a year we went on holiday. I had access to books and good old fashioned home-made food. I was in the children's home for 8 years. Children came and children went, some I don't remember others will stay in my heart forever.

I was assessed by an eminent psychiatrist who suggested the psychological damage was so severe that a residential setting would be the best place for me. His name was Dr Soddy! And he was right. For me, the children's home was a safe haven and I still go back there in my dreams.

After a number of years I was offered a foster placement. In those days kids weren't asked whether or not they wanted to go. I was one of the first children to be asked. I said NO!

I am a writer and a campaigner. I was a key player in the campaign to save Friern Barnet Library and have since written a book about the experience, ‘Occupied and Opened’.

When I heard the announcement about vulnerable care leavers, that children in foster care would get support until they were 21 but those in residential homes would still have to leave at 16, I was determined to fight for their rights, to fight for those without a voice, to fight for those too young to understand.

If there is injustice we have to stick together, we have to uphold care leavers integrity, and never give in until justice prevails.

I’m supporting the ECLCM campaign because I believe children in care no matter where they live should have equal support until they are 21.

Lisa Cherry

I am an author, speaker, trainer and coach with a long career in Social Work, Education and Social Inclusion. Up until 5 years ago, approaching my 40’s, I dealt with my experiences through an unconscious process of survival, denial, shame and ‘getting on with it’. When my recovery came to a halt because denying my trauma in its full entirety was no longer an option, I learnt not only deal with my past but to become proud of it as a part of my unique history.

I spent my adolescence in foster homes and children’s homes leaving care at 16 years old which was followed by two years living/surviving as a vulnerable homeless young woman, some of that was street homeless, with the final stop of that part of my life being made at an AA meeting, my last drunk, at the age of 20.

I am a mother of a 14 year old and 17 year old. I seek to pull together the personal and the professional and will campaign tirelessly on this matter. No-one, not one child, should have to endure what so many of us have and what young people continue to live, let alone be subject to legislation that actively encourages poorer outcomes for looked after children by definition of where they are placed.  

Ian Dickson

I am a widower devoted to my daughter and 4 little grandchildren. I am also a retired social worker. I spent almost 40 years in the profession in field work, residential work, inspection, regulation and advocacy.

The direction of my adult life was determined by a childhood in care, a miserable experience, leaving at 18 with nothing to show for it and no prospects. I was one of the lucky ones and life gave me a chance to have loving relationships, a good academic education and a normal life. Many of my peers never got that opportunity.

My career and adult life has been dedicated to ensuring other young people leaving care don't have to experience a childhood like mine in order to have a happy and fulfilled life.

I remain a passionate and uncompromising advocate for the rights of children in care and care leavers.

Louise Holt

Falling into the job of your dreams is not usually how the story goes but for me that is the reality.

Becoming a residential support worker was not the route I wanted to follow. I wanted to be midwife! Two and a half years down the line I am now an assistant manager and couldn’t think of working with any other group.

Never once have I felt the dread of getting up for work. I love the pace of the job, not knowing what I will face each day or how we will overcome this new challenge.

Anyone who works with young people in care know the rollercoaster you get on every morning of everyday. We laugh, we love, we disagree, we worry, we stress, we cry but my god, we care and somehow we make a dark day bright again for the kids.

I want to stay on the roller-coaster....it really is far more fun :)

Ed Nixon

I have spent a (working) lifetime bearing witness to the lives of children in care. I have been a social worker, a manager, a Chief Executive Officer. I remain a social worker committed to trying to make a contribution. I have earned my living and contributed to bringing up my family because I get paid to work with of children who have been abused, abandoned, taken into care and sometimes abused again, passed from one home to another and then sent on their way far too early. I am proud to say that I have always tried hard and occasionally ‘made the proverbial difference’.

I have twice carried or helped to carry the body of a child in care to its grave. One died as an infant and I was, with his mum, the only mourner; the other was murdered and I was privileged to be invited by his mother help him on his last journey.

Children in care are remarkably average, they are bright, challenged, skilled, clumsy, well-behaved, poorly behaved, tall, short, black, white and so on. Remarkably average. Except that they don’t get average chances. Children in care don’t ask to be rescued and we should never think that this is what we are doing. We should be trying to afford them an average, equal opportunity to become average adults. The average adult didn't leave home at 16 or 18 years of age. The average child in care shouldn't be made to either. Every Child Matters (even if they have been in care)….

This is why we are here and this is why we are not going anywhere until we improve outcomes for ALL young people in care through equal legislation! 

Comments on Mr Timpson’s Response to Craig Whittaker’s Speech Last Night....

We’ll start with Mr Timpson’s positive comments.  The Minister helpfully agreed that residential care is not a ‘last resort’ and young people should be able to remain in placement, when in their best interests to do so.  That is very welcome.

Mr Timpson’s commissioning of the National Children’s Bureau, The Who Cares? Trust and Catch 22 ‘to look at Staying Put arrangements in children’s homes over the coming year’ is also very welcome. 

However, the way the Minister described this step was ambiguous and this is an issue which needs clarity. The evaluation and discussion cannot be allowed to drag on interminably.

That said, this was the one significant new initiative.

Some of the Minister’s other comments relied on questionable or unreliable data. For example, Mr Timpson cited the Care Leavers’ Charter, saying over 120 authorities had signed up to support children in care up to age 21. He should have added this is entirely voluntary, unenforced by regulation and isn’t centrally monitored.

We are already aware of signatory councils who don’t implement the Charter: voluntary arrangements provide no sort of safety net for care leavers.

Mr Timpson spoke of ISA’s for young people leaving care; more generous leaving care allowances and the requirement for Directors of Children’s Services to sign off pathway planning.

Practical measures and support like this is commendable – but what about ensuring a statutory entitlement to the less tangible but nevertheless crucial emotional and parenting support for young people in care?

Mr Timpson said that local authorities are already able to support people beyond the age of 18 years in children’s homes and aware of some councils doing this. Also, that many young people left residential care to move into adult care.  We assume he is referring to young people with disabilities in both those instances. 

However, we are not aware of any local authority supporting young people beyond 18 in children’s homes.  And even if there were, there is no additional funding to support this.

Mr Timpson expressed caution about allowing young people to remain in children’s homes, lest they alter the registration status of the home. This is an interesting legal and regulatory issue which needs to be addressed: and as the Minister said, the difficulties presented are not insurmountable.

In response to Mr Whittaker’s comments about Ofsted’s positive judgements of 400 children’s homes, the Minister pointed out that this was under the old Ofsted inspection regime which was being enhanced to ‘push up’ quality and standards. 

While this may be factually correct, there is no evidence suggesting that Ofsted have failed to pick up on poor practice and poor standards in children’s homes. If anything, a new regime should ensure standards are improved further. One step in that direction would be for young people from care or young care-leavers to be part of the inspection team. How about it, Ofsted?

There is no routine follow up of every young person who has left care to review the success or otherwise of aftercare planning and outcomes.  Young people in children’s homes may still not be seen or spoken with by an Inspector, and questionnaires circulated by Ofsted may not include young people placed at the home at the time of inspection.

There is a great deal of scope to improve both monitoring and regulation by involving young people from care and young care leavers in inspection teams and in the routine “Regulation 33” monitoring visits each month. If Mr Timpson is looking for confidence that outcomes and standards of care given to young people are accurately assessed, this is the silver bullet which delivers it.

The Minister also expressed concern that there were ‘too many’ children’s homes still not operating at a good enough standard. Yet since Ofsted have regulatory powers to take enforcement action or even close children’s home in those cases, either few children’s homes are giving serious concern, or Ofsted are not doing their job.

We welcome genuine attempts to raise standards of care and safeguarding children and young people. This is why we seek similar initiatives for foster care.

Children and young people being fostered have the same issues as their peers in children’s homes. This is the core rationale behind the campaign for legal parity: before discrimination and the unintended consequence of a ‘two tier’ care system develops.

Mr Timpson recognises that many young people from residential care have been unhappy about arrangements to support them once they leave care. So are we – that’s why we seek parity.  

For now, though, we have a new inquiry by the Education Select Committee into post 16 care options specifically looking at residential care....this is good. This is very good!

Living At 'Home' Is Just Not An Option For Those Leaving Care

The BBC reported this week that there is a massive increase in the number of ‘twenty and thirty-something’s’ living at home with their parents. A sign, it is suggested, of the economic downturn. Being the BBC I am sure that they are right. These are difficult times to set off independently, with or without an income and a roof over your head. 

There have been radio phone ins, surveys and various commentators who appear mildly amused that such a large proportion of our ‘bright young things’ cannot afford to live independently in Britain 2014. It is, of course, very difficult for those perhaps Ed's own daughter who has spent three or four years in ‘under’ and then post graduate studies accruing considerable debt in the process. 

How fortunate then that the 3.5 million 20 -34 year olds (Labour Force Survey, Office for National Statistics) identified have parents and, or family homes to return to. How helpful that their degrees have at least increased their chances of being in employment as they weather this newly identified crisis in independence. This is a real concern and indicative of just how challenging life can be in Britain for relatively young people.

Imagine then the challenge for someone perhaps 10 years younger than the average member of the cohort studied by the ONS. Someone perhaps who is most unlikely to be heading towards university, or employment or an apprenticeship; a child who has no family on which to rely; an individual who has parents, but they are Corporate Parents, not quite identifiable because they sit in a council chamber and are generally inaccessible to ‘their’ children. 

What parents would consider it quite reasonable to tell their 16, 17 or at most 18 year old child that they must leave ‘home’ and never return because someone else will be sleeping in ‘their’ bed, ‘their’ room?  They cannot bring back their laundry at the end of term - there is no term for these children, except perhaps the long-term. 

They cannot visit at the weekend and enjoy a meal with their family – the family has changed. They may not borrow some money until the weekend to get them by, they are not the family’s responsibility any more. If they are cold and homeless and victims of exploitation then they should tell the police because their family is no longer their family. They are alone.

These are a large proportion of our society’s looked after children. Of course many fail – by reference to the usual measures, we seem to ensure that they do. Someone once said you can judge a society by the way it cares for its children and animals. Some might feel that one out of two isn’t bad. We don’t agree. Looked After Children should be supported until they are at least 21. Surely our looked after children deserve to be looked after at least ALMOST as well as those 3.5 million others?