× Close

Response to the Improving Help and Child Protection Consultation

Dear Statutory Framework Policy Team,

This email is my/our response to the “Improving help and child protection: revised framework” consultation.

Respondent details

Name: [not yet entered]
Email address: [not yet entered]
I am responding: [not yet selected]
Organisation / role: —
Role in organisation: —
Organisation email address: —
My experience of children’s social care: —
Keep my response confidential: [not yet selected]
Reason for confidentiality: —

Why I/we are responding to this consultation:
[not yet entered]

Additional comments:
—

---

Five changes to create a new direction for child protection

We welcome the Government’s commitment to improve help for families and the way services work together. However, we are concerned that the proposals could lead to more families being investigated without evidence that this will make children safer.

We are asking the Government to make five changes.

1. Make sure families asking for help get support, not suspicion

Many families come to children’s services because they need practical help — with disability, housing, poverty, addiction, mental health or other pressures. Too often, asking for help can instead lead to suspicion and intrusive checks, such as inspections of bedrooms and fridges or children being seen alone, even where there is no indication of abuse or neglect.

Poverty, insecure housing, inadequate services and other pressures should be recognised as needs for support, not converted into evidence of parental risk.

What needs to change:

• Working Together should create a distinct, support-led section 17 assessment route where there is no indication of abuse or neglect.
• Assessment should start with the child’s needs, strengths and circumstances and the help the family is asking for, including the social and material conditions affecting them.
• Families should give informed consent and be told clearly why information is being collected, what will be recorded and what could lead to escalation.
• Independent advocacy should be available.
• Wider family and kin should be involved and supported wherever possible. Where family support is limited or unavailable, this should lead to extra effort to build practical, community and professional support around the child and family — not be treated as a risk indicator in itself.

This consultation is an opportunity to put support first.

2. Give children and families a real say in decisions that affect them

Children and families have essential knowledge about their own lives. Their involvement must mean more than being consulted after decisions have largely been made.

What needs to change:

• Involve children, parents, wider kin and people with lived experience in designing services, governance, scrutiny and evaluation.
• Give people with lived experience a meaningful role in identifying research priorities and shaping the questions that policy and research address.
• Independently support and pay people who contribute their lived experience to this work.
• Make independent advocacy available during assessment and child protection processes.
• Tell families how their views have influenced decisions.
• Ask whether children and families felt listened to, treated fairly and received practical help.
• Use Family Group Decision Making to involve families and wider kin in planning.
• Where harm occurs outside the family, parents and carers should be treated as partners where it is safe to do so, and agencies should take responsibility for addressing unsafe places and contexts.

3. Protect disabled children and their families from parent blame

Disabled children are much more likely to be investigated by children’s social care. Between 2015 and 2023, section 47 investigations involving disability or mental-health concerns increased by 145.2%, and disabled children were more than three times as likely to be investigated.

Disability and unmet need should lead to support, not assumptions about parental failure.

What needs to change:

• Require disability- and neurodiversity-informed practice.
• Train practitioners to distinguish disability, diagnostic uncertainty and unmet need from abuse or neglect.
• Ensure practitioners can draw on appropriate specialist disability and neurodiversity expertise.
• Training should address confirmation bias, false positives and the potential harm caused by unnecessary investigation.
• Provide reasonable adjustments and independent advocacy for disabled children and families.
• Ensure families asking for disability-related support can get help without unnecessarily triggering child protection investigation.
• Monitor whether disabled children are being investigated disproportionately and take action where this occurs.
• Poverty, housing difficulties, parental distress and unmet health or education needs should not be treated as proxies for parental risk.

4. Record decisions openly and measure whether child protection actually reduces harm — not just how many investigations happen

More activity does not necessarily mean better child protection. The key questions should be: Are children safer? Are families getting the help they need? Are the causes of harm being reduced?

Investigation and intervention can themselves cause distress and disruption. These harms need to be recognised and measured alongside any benefits.

What needs to change:

• Record important decisions and the reasons for them, and tell families what is happening.
• Annual reporting should measure support provided, outcomes for children and families, repeat involvement and the relationship between strategy discussions, section 47 investigations and Child Protection Plans.
• A reduction in investigations that do not lead to Child Protection Plans should be an important measure of better decision-making.
• Work should be judged on accuracy of decisions, proportionality, family and child experience and reduction of harm — not simply activity levels or speed.
• Data should be broken down by disability, ethnicity and deprivation so inequalities can be identified.
• Independently supported children and families with lived experience should be involved in scrutiny of the system.

The same principle should guide any future Child Protection Authority: its role should be to establish what actually reduces significant harm and improves children’s wellbeing, not turn every serious incident into a reason for more risk identification and investigation.

5. Don’t expand information-sharing between services until there is evidence that it makes children safer

The Government proposes to extend information-sharing between services and create Multi-Agency Child Protection Teams (MACPTs).

National research found that when Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASHs) were introduced, section 47 investigations increased substantially, but they did not identify more children needing Child Protection Plans and there was no significant reduction in serious harm or child deaths.

More information-sharing, earlier identification of risk and greater multi-agency involvement should not automatically be treated as better protection.

What needs to change:

• Independently evaluate MACPTs before expanding their role nationally.
• Until there is evidence that they reduce harm, focus MACPTs on providing specialist advice, improving transparency and helping agencies respond to the causes of harm in families and communities.
• Do not give MACPTs broad control over thresholds, investigations, child protection conferences, plans or legal decisions without evidence that this improves safety.
• Evaluate information-sharing by its impact on children and families, not simply by whether more information is shared or more cases are investigated.

These five changes would help move the system towards support, transparency, evidence and genuine partnership with children and families.

---

Detailed responses to the consultation questions

The responses below show how the five changes above relate to the specific consultation questions.

Questions 1–2: Child and family voice — Demand 2

Q1: NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE

Q2: The proposals are welcome, but family voice must mean more than consultation on existing plans. Parents and children with lived experience should be involved in co-design, governance, scrutiny and evaluation, with independent support, payment where appropriate and access to advocacy.

Questions 3–4 and 7: Multi-agency accountability — Demands 4 and 5

Q3: AGREE
Q4: STRONGLY AGREE

Q7: Independent scrutiny and annual reporting must examine outcomes, proportionality and unintended harm, not just compliance or activity. Reports should show referrals, support-led section 17 assessments, strategy discussions, section 47 enquiries, Child Protection Plans, repeat involvement, care entry and the proportion of investigations leading to Child Protection Plans. Data should be broken down by disability, ethnicity and deprivation. Scrutiny should also examine whether families received practical help, whether children became safer and whether unnecessary investigation caused harm or deterred help-seeking.

Questions 8–13: Family Help and section 17 — Demand 1

Q8: AGREE IN PRINCIPLE, SUBJECT TO SAFEGUARDS

Q9: Section 17 can provide a clear statutory entitlement to support, but guidance should establish a distinct support-led route where there is no indication of abuse or neglect. Assessment should focus on the child’s needs, strengths, social and material circumstances and the help requested. Consent, transparency and independent advocacy are essential.

Q10: AGREE — family and kin networks should be involved and supported wherever possible. Where support is limited or unavailable, this should prompt additional work to build support around the family rather than being treated as an indicator of risk.

Q11: AGREE

Q12: STRONGLY AGREE — children returning home should have a clear plan setting out the support that they and their family will receive.

Q13: Family Help should be genuinely supportive, not simply a lower stage of child protection. Families should be asked what help they need and offered practical assistance early. Disability, poverty, insecure housing, parental distress and unmet health or education needs should be addressed as needs rather than treated as evidence of parental risk.

Questions 14–25: Multi-Agency Child Protection Teams — Demands 3, 4 and 5

Q14 — Proposed MACPT functions

AGREE: advice and consultation; maintaining knowledge of children subject to section 47 enquiries or Child Protection Plans.

STRONGLY AGREE: contributing to statutory safeguarding-partner reporting.

DISAGREE: determining the significant-harm threshold; chairing strategy meetings; leading investigations; overseeing Child Protection Plans; providing evidence for court orders.

STRONGLY DISAGREE: chairing child protection conferences; deciding whether to move into pre-proceedings and the Public Law Outline.

Advice, expertise and transparent reporting may be useful, but these wider powers should not be prescribed before independent evaluation shows that MACPTs reduce harm and unnecessary intervention.

Q15: AGREE — provided the practice framework includes the support-led section 17 route and safeguards against unnecessary investigation and parent blame.

Q16: DISAGREE with Lead Child Protection Practitioners chairing strategy meetings; NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE on MACPT members ensuring appropriate partner-agency representation; STRONGLY AGREE that the threshold decision and reasons should be recorded.

Q17: AGREE to reviewing progress within five days; AGREE to setting a timeframe where an extension is needed; STRONGLY AGREE that the decision and reasons should be recorded; AGREE to a clear interim safety plan.

Q18: STRONGLY AGREE — initial child protection conferences should remain close to the 15-day timeframe except in recorded exceptional circumstances.

Q19: STRONGLY DISAGREE — Lead Child Protection Practitioners embedded in MACPTs should not automatically chair child protection conferences.

Q20: STRONGLY AGREE with recording discharge decisions, identifying continuing support, recording practitioner input and notifying parents and carers; AGREE with notifying all relevant agencies; NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE on MACPT involvement in transitions into pre-proceedings, care proceedings, reunification and wider support.

Q21: STRONGLY AGREE — statutory guidance should retain local flexibility in assigning pre-proceedings and court work.

Q22: STRONGLY AGREE with knowledge of the statutory framework; understanding significant harm and the child’s daily life; inclusive and anti-discriminatory practice; constructive challenge; evidence-based intervention; and listening to children. AGREE with the proposed competencies on assessing needs and information for multi-agency decisions.

Q23: Competency frameworks should include disability, neurodivergence, poverty, trauma, domestic abuse, cultural humility, diagnostic uncertainty, confirmation bias, false positives, reasonable adjustments and the distinction between unmet need and parental maltreatment. Teams should be evaluated on accuracy, proportionality, family experience and reduction of harm — not simply the volume or speed of activity.

Q25: The proposed MACPT model risks extending the MASH approach without adequate evidence that it improves outcomes. National analysis of 130 local authorities found substantially greater increases in section 47 enquiries after MASH introduction, but no significant difference in Child Protection Plans or rates of serious harm and child deaths. MACPTs should therefore be independently evaluated before being given broad control over thresholds, investigations, conferences, plans and pre-proceedings.

Questions 26–27: Extra-familial harm and looked-after children — Demand 2

Q26: STRONGLY AGREE with treating parents as partners where safe, supporting parents, involving children, focusing on contextual drivers of harm, escalating action required from agencies rather than families, and requiring accountable action from professionals responsible for places where children are harmed. AGREE with consistent section 47 thresholds and disruption activity. NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE on the proposed MACPT coordinating role.

Q27: STRONGLY AGREE with consistent use of strategy discussions, section 47 enquiries and child protection conferences for looked-after children; NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE on multi-agency input through the MACPT/LCPP role; AGREE on clear practitioner roles and accountability; NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE on alignment of care planning and child protection processes.

Questions 28–29: Kinship care — Demands 1 and 2

Q28: DISAGREE

Q29: Kinship carers should receive adequate financial support for their caring and safeguarding responsibilities, alongside appropriate help with contact, family relationships and other pressures, so children are protected from the effects of poverty.

Questions 37–38: Enduring relationships — Demand 2

Q37: DISAGREE

Q38: For both looked-after children and care leavers, there should be much stronger support to maintain or renew important relationships with birth siblings, extended family and parents where appropriate.

Question 41: Equality impact — Demands 1, 3 and 4

Q41: Disabled children and their families are at particular risk of adverse impact. National data show that section 47 investigations involving disability or mental-health concerns rose by 145.2% between 2015 and 2023, and disabled children were more than three times as likely to be investigated.

Expanding all Family Help under section 17 and creating risk-focused MACPTs could widen statutory scrutiny and parent blame, particularly when families seek support for disability, mental health or diagnostic uncertainty.

The proposals should therefore include a separate support-led section 17 route where there is no indication of abuse or neglect; mandatory disability and neurodiversity training; access to appropriate specialist expertise; reasonable adjustments; independent advocacy; and monitoring broken down by disability, ethnicity and deprivation.

Socio-economic disadvantage should also be explicitly considered in assessing equality impact, particularly given the Government’s commitment to the socio-economic duty. Crisis and Resilience Funds and other practical support should be used to address material hardship rather than poverty being treated as evidence of parental risk.

Evidence

Bilson, A. (2025), Patterns of Service for Disabled Children in English Social Care, Research on Social Work Practice.

Bilson, A. (2026), Do Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs improve child protection outcomes? Evidence from national administrative data, British Journal of Social Work.

Department for Education, Improving help and child protection: revised framework consultation.