In a reply to the preceding article, Ian Sinclair examines the four main arguments put forward in Michael Little's challenge to current social care provision: the care system is not ethical, it is out of date and arbitrary, and too little is known about it. Furthermore, there is an alternative.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BiehalN., Reuniting Looked After Children with their Families: A review of the research, London: National Children's Bureau, 2006.
2.
HenseyD.WilliamsJ.RosenbloomL., ‘Intervention in child abuse: Experience in Liverpool’, Departmental Medicine and Child Neurology25, pp 606–11, 1983.
3.
KingJ.TaitzL., ‘Catch-up growth following abuse’, Archives of Disease in Childhood60, pp 1152–154, 1985.
4.
MintyB., Child Care and Adult Crime, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1987.
5.
SinclairI.BakerC.WilsonK.GibbsI., Foster Children: Where they go and how they get on, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2005.
6.
SinclairI.BakerC.LeeJ.GibbsI., The Pursuit of Permanence: A study of the English care system, London: Jesssica Kingsley Publishers, 2007.
7.
TaussigH.ClymanR.LandsverkJ., ‘Children who return home from foster care: A six-year prospective study of behavioral health outcomes in adolescence’, Pediatrics108, pp 62–68, 2001.
