Gaby Hinsliff provides a searching analysis of how child “AB” has become “a pawn in a bigger political game” (Who will safeguard the victims of our cultural wars?, 1 September). However, as well as highlighting the positive contribution of foster carers, mention should also be made of kinship carers – grandparents, uncles and aunts or close family friends. It is now little AB’s grandmother who will be responsible for her care. Research shows that kinship carers provide a strong family and cultural identity, with the child not seeing themselves as “in care”, and they stick with them through troubled times – although they often lack the financial, practical and personal support they need.
Analysis of census data carried out in 2011 showed that just under 7,000 children in care in England were “looked after” by kinship carers and a further 136,497, or 95%, living in informal kinship care. It is also of note that in the UK, just under 20% of young people are placed with kinship carers compared to just under half in Spain (more than those living in foster or residential care) – and that there is great variation in usage between English local authorities. This evidence clearly suggests the need for kinship care to receive far greater recognition and resources as part of a continuum of care services for children unable to be cared for at home.
Mike Stein
Emeritus professor, University of York
Gaby Hinsliff, as ever, is so perceptive and spot on – with one slight exception. She says “… when the report came back positive, the judge effectively rubber-stamped the decision.” I do not want readers to have the impression that judges ever rubber-stamp decisions. They most certainly do not.
I spent years as a judge (now retired) dealing with issues surrounding children and parents – and always considered all the circumstances, evidence, reports and the law before reaching a decision. All judges do as a matter of course. I think Gaby accepts this, because elsewhere in the piece she says “And it is only thanks to that judge’s published ruling that we now know…”
No decision is ever a foregone conclusion, especially where the welfare of a child is concerned.
David Shannon
Woore, Shropshire
• Gaby Hinsliff provided a wise comment on the so-called Muslim fostering row and how biased reporting had created a misleading and mischievous story. Some surprise then to find that an editorial on the same day (The remedy for biased reporting of family courts is more openness, 1 September) argued that the press should have more access to the family courts and access to personal information about children and families. This will not reduce press bias and bile. It will, though, provide easy fodder for salacious and sensational reporting and increased intrusion and exposure for those who are already in difficulty and distressed.
Dr Ray Jones
Emeritus professor of social work, Kingston University and St George’s, University of London
• What I find most depressing in the miasma of prejudice and invention surrounding the case of “AB” is the unquestioning assumption that a five-year-old child should be a Christian – or a Muslim, or anything else. She may have parents who subscribe to that religion (although in the current case, given the family background, that seems open to question), but the child herself is not old enough to make any such decision.
As Gaby Hinsliff says, finding a loving family is what matters. As for the religion, I suggest that a child is old enough to have a religion ascribed when it’s old enough to take criminal responsibility – and that’s far too young in this country.
Judith Martin
Winchester, Hampshire
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
