Of all the various forms of child maltreatment that we hear about in the media, child neglect is the one which attracts the least attention. Perhaps this is because it is less dramatic than abuse; neglect tends to be insidious by nature and therefore easy to overlook- particularly when we don't want to see it! Perhaps also, in cases of child neglect, we don't know who to blame. The parents concerned may be battling against adversity on many fronts and have become so preoccupied with their own problems that their children don't get a look in. Neglect, as distinct from abuse, is rarely malicious, it is more usually about what parents or carers fail to do for their children rather than any harm they deliberately inflict. In these circumstances it seems rather beside the point to castigate parents for their inadequacies; the parents are needy too!

Another factor, which further complicates the situation is the sheer scale and apparent intractability of the problem. Neglect is not just something that goes on within families, it is a social problem too. There are certain neighbourhoods where whole communities have suffered neglect on a massive scale. In these "exclusion zones" the accommodation is barely habitable, crime is rife, industry has relocated and there are no jobs to be found, the school is graffiti-ridden and decaying, the health centre is overwhelmed and the whole environment is not in the least people-friendly, still less child-friendly. Small wonder then that children, too, get neglected - there is not even anywhere safe for them to play!

Then there are our own feelings of hesitancy and ambivalence to overcome There cannot be many parents or carers who haven't, at times, felt that their children needed more from them than they were able to give and that they were therefore failing to put children first. This awareness of our own shortcomings combined with a reluctance to interfere in family matters has contributed to what a leading academic has referred to as a 'culture of diffidence" around child neglect. We are more likely to worry about a child being neglected than we are to do anything about it.

Many people have tried to spell out what we mean by child neglect yet the concept remains a difficult one to define. Extreme neglect is easy to recognise but there is a fuzzy area around what exactly is "good enough" care. The most helpful definition I have come across is also the simplest. It states that children are neglected when their basic needs are not met, regardless of cause. This begs the question of what it is that children need from their carers but, in fact, there is a growing body of evidence about what children need for their optimum development which is reflected in a broad public and professional consensus. Most of us agree that children have needs in terms of food and nutrition, warmth and clothing, health and hygiene, safety and supervision and the critically important dimension of emotional nurture. Whenever I have asked people what children need, "unconditional love and acceptance" has nearly always come out at the top of the list. Child neglect, by default, is what happens when children's basic needs are not met and when they are left to survive as best they can in an environment of emotional as well as material poverty.

In spite of the acknowledged "neglect of neglect" in child protection circles, there are indications that the problem is on the increase. Out of all the children whose names are on the Child Protection Register, those who are registered on the grounds of neglect account for between one quarter and one half. This proportion has been rising steadily over the past 5 years all over England and Wales so that for many authorities child neglect is the largest category of maltreated children. We also know that neglected children tend to stay on the register for longer than children who have been physically, sexually or emotionally abused. Registration figures invariably underestimate the actual incidence so that we can safely say that there are more children suffering from neglect than those currently known to social workers and other professionals. Similarly, of those children who are judged to be "in need" (rather than 'at risk'), there is a large percentage who are experiencing low-level neglect.

There is a steadily accumulating weight of evidence from all sorts of disciplines that neglect is harmful to children and that this harm may have long-term consequences for children, families and society as a whole. We know that neglect is bad for children's bodies and for their brains. It can stunt growth and retard brain development. We know, too, that neglect is bad for children's learning, leading to delayed speech and language development and impoverished play and imagination. Neglect is bad for children's emotions, producing negative self identity and low self esteem; the neglected child thinks, "If 1 don't matter to those who are supposed to love and care for me then I can't be worth much'." Neglect is bad for children's relationships, because if they haven't formed a healthy attachment to their mother or father, they are unlikely to be able to maintain healthy relationships with their peers, their teachers or others who may be trying to help them. In short, neglect is bad for children and chronic neglect can be fatal.

In the face of all this evidence of the harmful effects of neglect our hesitation about intervening becomes less and less tenable. Into our doubt and indecision a question from very long ago sounds a clear challenge to Christians. Cain's plea, "Am I my brother's keeper?' echoed and amplified by Jesus' response to the expert in the law who asked him: And who is my neighbour?" make it clear that the option of passing by on the other side is one which is not open to followers of Jesus. The avoidable suffering of children presents a challenge to the church which cannot be ducked. In the next issue 1 intend to examine how we might respond to child neglect and what it is that is distinctive about the Christian response.

Click here to return to the Articles menu.