Mr Timpson, who is MP for Crewe and Nantwich, is a family law barrister, and before his new appointment, was chair of the House of Commons all-party parliamentary groups (APPG) on both looked-after children and care leavers and adoption and fostering, and vice chair of the APPG for runaway and missing children.

Until his election in 2008, he practised as a family law barrister, specialising in the cases of vulnerable children. He is patron of the charity Home Start, has two adopted younger brothers and his parents have fostered almost 90 children.

A report published earlier this week by the looked-after children and care leavers APPG suggested that schools should receive a “pupil premium plus” of more than £1,000 in additional funding for every child in care that they teach.

Launching the report, Mr Timpson said: “Education can be a lifeline for looked-after children. The pupil premium plus would be a well-targeted way to get extra resources directly to the children and really make a difference.

“It is a practical acknowledgement of the deeper-rooted problems children in care have in education and a demonstration of our commitment to help them fulfil their potential.”

Former children’s minister Tim Loughton sent Mr Timpson a message of congratulations on his appointment through the social networking site Twitter. “He has great experience and empathy with children in care,” Mr Loughton said.

Edward is the son of John Timpson, chief executive of the Timpson chain of key-cutting and shoe-repair shops.

The report says that Mr Loughton made the announcement on Twitter, stating he regretted that after seven years as a shadow children’s minister and two years as junior children’s minister, the prime minister had asked him to stand down. He also wished his successor luck.

Community Care adds that in his time as minister, Mr Loughton vocally championed social work, appointing Professor Eileen Munro to carry out a review on child protection, which made far reaching recommendations to reduce bureaucracy and improve social work practice.

However, while these proved popular with social workers, accompanying proposals to radically slim down the Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance sparked concerns that safeguards for children would be weakened.

Mr Loughton also initiated wide-ranging reforms to the adoption system, designed speed up the process and reduce barriers to people becoming adoptive parents. These have proved controversial with some social workers warning the reforms could lead to more adoption breakdowns.

Mr Loughton also championed greater autonomy for foster carers in looking after children, through the government’s foster carers’ charter.

The report notes he has received a number of tributes on Twitter for his time as children’s minister. Mr Loughton “worked hard for children in care”, said the National Association of Fostering Providers, a sentiment echoed by Jonny Hoyle, care leaver and trustee of charity A National Voice.

While Mr Loughton “supported cuts that threaten so many valuable resources”, he “at least made real effort to understand [the] sector,” said Alan Fisher, director of care at fostering charity SFS.

The study found a large drop in intelligence in those who started using the drug in their teens and continued to take it for years afterwards.

Attention and memory were also harmed, with those who developed a taste for the drug in adolescence faring worse in a test to spot the early signs of Alzheimer’s in pensioners.

The effects on IQ could still be seen in those who had not touched the drug for a year.

The results are believed to be the first firm evidence that show cannabis use can  wreak damage on everyday life.

Professor Robin Murray, a consultant psychiatrist at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, said: ‘It is, of course, part of folklore among young people that some heavy users of cannabis seem to gradually lose their abilities and end up achieving much less than one would have anticipated.

 ’This study provides one explanation as to why this might be the case.’

One of the researchers said: ‘The simple message is that substance use is not healthy for kids.’

Official figures show that although drug use is falling among British schoolchildren, cannabis is still their drug of choice, with almost one in ten of 11 to 15 year olds questioned having used it in 2011.

The analysis, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, also found those who used the drug (pictured here) persistently from their teens did worse on a memory test

The international research team, including some from the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, put more than 1,000 boys and girls through a battery of IQ tests when they were aged 13 and 14.

They did the same tests more than 20 years later, at the age of 38, and any differences were noted. They were also asked every few years if they had taken cannabis and, if so, how often.

Unlike some previous studies, none had tried the drug when the research started, making it easier to tease out any effects of cannabis on the brain.

The results showed small falls in IQ in those who never or rarely used the drug and in those who had started to use it a lot as adults.

But in those who became hooked on cannabis in their teens, IQ fell by an average of eight points – the equivalent of going from being of average intelligence to being in the bottom third of the population.

Researcher Professor Terrie Moffitt, of the Institute of Psychiatry, said: ‘Research has shown that IQ is a strong determinant of a person’s access to college education, their lifelong total income, their access to a good job, their performance on the job, their tendency to develop heart disease and even early death.

‘Individuals who lose eight points in their teens and twenties may be disadvantaged, relative to their same-age peers, in the most important aspects of life and for years to come.’

The analysis, detailed in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, also found those who used the drug persistently from their teens did worse on a memory test used normally to spot tell-tale signs of dementia.

Earlier this month scientists revealed they have found a switch in the brain which may explain why smoking cannabis causes psychosis and addiction in more than one-in-ten users.

The team, at Aberdeen University found a genetic difference in the switch, probably inherited from early humans who smoked the drug in prehistoric times.

The difference may also explain why some people could be more susceptible to conditions such as obesity.

The chemical ‘switch’ discovered by researchers could explain by one in ten cannabis smokers suffer from psychosis and addiction issues.

The chemical ‘switch’ discovered by researchers could explain by one in ten cannabis smokers suffer from psychosis and addiction issues.

And their friends told of them forgetting to return calls, pay bills and do errands.

With those who started taking cannabis persistently as adults suffering few ill-effects, the researchers say the drug may be particularly toxic in the teenage years, when the brain undergoes a rapid growth spurt.

Laurence Steinberg, a U.S. expert on the development of the adolescent brain, said: ‘This study points to adolescence as a time of heightened vulnerability.

‘The findings are pretty clear that it is not simply chronic use that causes the deficits but chronic use with adolescent onset.’

Professor Murray, whose own work has shown a clear link between cannabis use in teenage years and mental illness in later life, described the research as very impressive.

He said that if other studies come to the same conclusion ‘it will be very important and public education campaigns should be initiated to let people know the risks’.

Martin Barnes, chief executive of charity DrugScope, said: ‘Although the number of cannabis users in the UK has been falling consistently for some years, the risks to the health and wellbeing of those who do use it have not decreased.

‘As with all recreational drugs, it is important that all young people are informed about the potential harms of cannabis use, through good quality drug education and well-resourced public health campaigns.’

Laboratory tests showed that  mother’s milk fosters unique colonies of microbiotic flora that aid nutrient absorption and boost immune system development.

Study leader Dr William Parker, said: ‘This study is the first we know of that examines the effects of infant nutrition on the way that bacteria grow, providing insight to the mechanisms underlying the benefits of breast feeding over formula feeding for newborns.

‘Only breast milk appears to promote a healthy colonization of beneficial biofilms, and these insights suggest there may be potential approaches for developing substitutes that more closely mimic those benefits in cases where breast milk cannot be provided.’

Other studies have shown that breast milk lowers the incidence of diarrhoea, influenza and respiratory infections during infancy. It also protects against the later development of allergies, type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis and other illnesses.

As scientists have learned more about the role intestinal flora plays in health, they have gained appreciation for how an infant’s early diet can affect this beneficial microbial universe.

In their study, the Duke researchers grew bacteria in samples of infant formulas, cow’s milk and breast milk.

The samples were incubated with two strains of E. coli bacteria – necessary early inhabitants of the gut that are helpful cousins to the dangerous organisms associated with food poisoning.

 Within minutes, the bacteria began multiplying in all of the specimens, but there was an immediate difference in the way the bacteria grew. In the breast milk, bacteria stuck together to form biofilms – thin, adherent layers of bacteria that serve as a shield against pathogens and infections.

Bacteria in the infant formula and cow’s milk proliferated but it did not aggregate to form a protective barrier.

Dr Parker said: ‘Knowing how breast milk conveys its benefits could help in the development of infant formulas that better mimic nature.

‘This could have a long-lasting effect on the health of infants who, for many reasons, may not get mother’s milk.’

The UK Department of Health recommends that new mothers should breastfeed for at least six months. Figures released last year revealed 81 per cent of mothers start breastfeeding, however over half have quit by the time their baby is six weeks. Only one in five continue to six months.

Cracked nipples, infections such as mastitis and problems getting a baby to latch on can all hinder breastfeeding.

Dr Gabriela Panayotti, from Duke, said: ‘This study adds weight to existing  evidence that breast milk is the most nutritious way to feed a baby.

‘We know that breastfed babies have better outcomes in many ways, and mother who breast feed also have improved health outcomes, including decreased risks of cancer.’

The findings have been published in the August issue of the journal Current Nutrition & Food Science

This was despite Government pledges in May to provide a named midwife throughout pregnancy and postnatal care,  one-to-one care in labour and the ‘best choice’ about birth location.

The survey suggests more than 200,000 mothers-to-be have no continuity of care, although they were promised that one named midwife would oversee their care during pregnancy and after having their baby.

The survey also found that a fifth of mothers – around 120,000 – were left feeling unsupported when they were actually giving birth.

Around 20% said they had no choice at all about where their child would be delivered, and 66% were not offered the chance to give birth in a midwife-led unit

Altogether, 32 per cent of women said they always saw a different midwife during their pregnancy, rising to 60 per cent in London.

 Care in labour was lacking for 18 per cent of women, and afterwards one third said they were let down. For one fifth of women, only one option was offered for place of birth, with more than half saying there were too few midwives to give them more choice.

Cathy Warwick, of the Royal College of Midwives, said the NHS was desperately short of midwives, with 5,000 more needed.

She added: ‘The Government says it is committed to providing better maternity care, and we endorse the pledges they have made. However, actions speak louder than words and this survey shows there are many challenges ahead to ensure their promises are delivered across England.

‘It highlights the pressing need for sustained investment in maternity services and midwives.’

Labour health spokesman Andrew Gwynne said: ‘This Government has distracted and destabilised the NHS with budget cuts and an unnecessary reorganisation, leaving the NHS unable to fulfil Government promises on maternity care.

‘Ministers must get a grip and start taking their own maternity pledges seriously.’

Health minister Simon Burns said: ‘As we said in May, these improvements will be seen over the next few years as the wave of investment in health visitors, 5,000 midwifery students and  psychological therapies kicks in. Every woman should get excellent maternity care. We are working with the Royal College of Midwives and others to improve the experience mothers receive.’

A study conducted by Harvard Medical School among women in Cape Town, South Africa, found that pregnant women who had three units of alcohol a day had babies with a lower height, weight and head circumference than light or non-drinkers.

These effects lasted well past infancy and into childhood, said the study – one of the longest-running into the effects of alcohol on the unborn child.

The researchers tested a group of 85 pregnant women, defined as ‘heavy drinkers’, who drank the equivalent of at least a large (250ml) glass of wine a day.

The group was compared with a group of 63 women from the same prenatal clinic, who either did not drink at all or drank ‘lightly’ – less than one unit a day and no bingeing.

Their children’s height, weight and head circumference was measured at the ages of six months, a year, five years and nine years.

Lead author Dr Robert Carter said: ‘We found that children born to women who drank heavily during pregnancy had reductions in weight, height, and head circumference, an indicator of brain growth.

 ’This alcohol-related growth restriction was present in early infancy and persisted through to nine years of age.’

He said the effects may be permanent and affect brain development, giving children a lower IQ for life.

Children born to heavy drinkers had a four times higher chance of a low birth weight and were significantly lighter at a year old.

The researchers said developmental problems caused by alcohol could stop them feeding properly during infancy.

By the age of five, the children’s weight in relation to their height was normal, but they were six times as likely to be anaemic as the children of non-drinking mothers, regardless of their diet.

Those with iron deficiency anaemia at birth were more likely to have stunted growth and Dr Carter said it seemed to be a direct effect of alcohol exposure in the womb.

Between the ages of five and nine, the children of non-drinking mothers had an average increase in head circumference of 2 centimetres, compared with 1.6 centimetres for the heavy drinkers.

The heavy drinkers were encouraged to abstain or cut down but 17 of them – a fifth of the sample – gave birth to children with Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, the main cause of mental retardation in children in the West.

Another 22 had Partial Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.

The effects of heavy drinking were regardless of the women’s age at giving birth and whether they smoked or took drugs.

The stunted growth in later childhood was not related to food intake.
It is thought foetal exposure to alcohol inhibits growth hormones

The report suggests that anyone wanting to view hardcore images online should have to ‘opt out’ of a special filter, according to the panel of MPs and peers looking into online child protection.

They concluded that parents were often outsmarted by their web-savvy children and felt unconfident in updating and downloading content filters. Many parents were ‘oblivious’ to the type of material available on the internet and were often shocked when they realised the content that children were accessing.

Claire Perry MP who chaired the Independent Parliamentary Inquiry on Online Child Protection, said: ‘This is hugely worrying. While parents should be responsible for their children’s online safety, in practice, people find it difficult to put content filters on the plethora of internet-enabled devices in their homes. It’s time that Britain’s internet service providers, who make more than £3billion a year from selling internet access services, took on more of the responsibility to keep children safe.’

Marisa Guthrie

Whilst a lack of basic literacy and numeracy skills in those caring for our young should be of real concern, an equally pressing issue is that of understanding brain development in young children, in particular the 0-3 range.

For the first time in our history, there is a wide body of neurological research available that shows specifically how a baby’s brain develops. This is backed up by over 50 years of psychological research and theory, so that we have a very clear picture of a child’s emotional needs throughout the early years, and how those needs can be met to foster happy, secure, confident and empathic children.

This is no small thing. If this knowledge was easily accessible to those working with babies and young children, it would dramatically change the nursery environment, and even the workplace. In today’s western economy, it is largely impossible for a family to survive on one salary exclusively for a prolonged time. Mothers are encouraged to work as soon as possible so some kind of external care for their young children is mostly inevitable.

Grandparents would once have been the obvious choice for this level of care, but in a world of nuclear families, this is now not always possible.

It is essential that in addition to good numeracy and literary skills, all those working with young children have a clear understanding of a child’s developing brain and what that child needs to thrive emotionally as well as educationally. The government and all the main political parties now have an early years agenda, but this is not something that can be mandated by Whitehall. As a society, we have a responsibility to invest in the emotional health of young children and thereby improve the quality of care they receive in their early years.

by Marissa Guthrie

Penelope Leach’s speech to the NSPCC/MPG Children’s Rights  seminar held February 6, 2012

ALL PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS. BABIES ARE PEOPLE, SO WHAT ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS?

Rights for babies will be a new idea to a lot of people and a silly idea to some. Babies are completely dependent on adults to do and decide everything for them; they can’t ask for what they need or say or take what they want, so how they possibly have “rights” and what could those rights be? A few people say they are actually offended by the idea of babies having rights because rights should bring responsibilities or obligations with them and babies cannot meet any of those. All those positions need re-thinking. People who have never given a thought to babies’ rights probably haven’t thought very much about babies. Human rights belong to everyone who is human, and babies are certainly that. Of course babies can’t exercise all their human rights but that doesn’t mean they don’t have them. A new baby can’t exercise control over his own head but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have one. The concept of rights only seems absurdly grown up for children who are too young to express opinions and make decisions if human rights are confused with civil rights. Meeting the idea for the first time people say things like “ Surely civil rights are for citizens?” “Surely citizens are individuals who can make their views known?” And “surely people are only “entitled” to rights if they acknowledge concomitant responsibilities?” Many such people are uncomfortable with the language of “rights”, feeling that somehow one person’s rights are always at the expense of somebody else’s power, privilege or property. And that’s especially true of children’s rights, which many parents, carers and teachers see as infringing their own “rights” and authority, and communities often see as something that should be subject to responsible behaviour –not rights at all but social contracts. With that mindset it’s not surprising if the idea of babies ‘ rights is one step too far. It’s a mindset we need to change, though, for the sake of all babies, the families who care for them and the children they will grow into, . The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Twenty years ago the UK, along with almost every other nation (the notable exception being the US) signed The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the second most widely ratified of all conventions ever produced and the most lastingly influential document concerning children. As the title suggests the Convention is for children and as its interpreting committee makes clear, that means all children, all the time and everywhere. (Articles 1 & 2). As the Convention was originally drawn up, though, its focus was mainly on older children and young people; those who could exercise such rights as having their opinions listened to and contributing to decisions affecting them (Article 12). Where the rights of very young children are specifically mentioned they mostly refer to rights to physical health and to the care of children who are not being looked after by their parents (Articles 20-27). The committee has worked to correct that, but even its General Comment No 7 “Implementing child rights in early childhood” does not focus on infancy. Young children are defined as those under eight years old and while babies are certainly included, (especially in Articles 6, 7 & 8. Features of, and Research into early childhood) they are not specified or differentiated. Universal recognition of the rights of people who are under one or two years old is both important and urgent. Important because human rights matter just as much (or more if that is possible) to very young, rapidly developing infants as to older children, adolescents or adults. Urgent because this youngest age-group is the most vulnerable to neglect and abuse and currently the most likely to die at the hands of parents, step-parents or “carers” The particular importance of recognising and respecting infants’ rights A breach of the human rights of an older child or an adolescent – discrimination, perhaps, or even forceful separation from loving parents- may change his attitudes and his life-course but will probably leave his self – his personality – more or less unscathed. Breaching an infant’s rights, on the other hand, may actually effect the person she becomes, distorting the development of her brain and the working of her nervous system and lessening development of the resilience she will need to cope with difficulties later on. we’ve known for a long time that a baby’s relationships – and therefore the way he is treated and the environment in which he learns – effect his behaviour, but it is only recently that research has begun to show that those environmental variables effect the actual structure and functioning of his brain and therefore the kind of adult he becomes and, if he has children, the kind of parent. So ensuring the human rights of one generation maximises the chance of human rights for the next, while ignoring those rights: withholding respect, affirmation, inclusion and freedom, tends to pass from one generation to the next too. This is fresh knowledge coming from contemporary neuroscience; from brain scans in humans and years of research on the brains of primates and other mammals. Sometimes knowledge that is new and surprising is partly camouflaged in old knowledge. Everyone knows, for instance, that the more a baby is talked to the more rapidly his own speech will develop. But not everyone is yet aware that being talked to actually increases aspects of brain growth and maximises a baby’s intelligence. Similarly, it is well-known that babies are easily damaged by physical abuse, but not everyone realises that even if there is no physical damage done to a baby’s brain, fear of violence can distort its development. Babies’ rights in parents’ hands Recognising babies’ rights and ensuring that their particular needs are met is the essence of child protection, preventing many problems and interrupting others before they escalate. The Convention recognises that this is primarily the obligation of parents : “For the exercise of their rights young children have particular requirements for physical nurturance, emotional care and sensitive guidance….”. Respect for parents’ roles includes the obligation on States and agencies “not to separate children from their parents unless it is in the child’s best interests” (article 9) The requirement that all adults and institutions must act “in the best interests of the child” (article 3). is threaded through many articles .To that end States must support and assist families in nurturing their children (Article 5) and in improving perinatal care for mothers and babies (Article 6). Article 6 is concerned with the Right to life, survival and development, and recognizes that poverty and disease remain major obstacles to realizing rights in early childhood. But article 6 recognizes that psychosocial well being is interdependent with health and may be put at risk not only by poverty, neglect & abuse but also by insensitive treatment and restricted opportunities. The Committee’s “comment 7” fills out these messages, talking of the interweaving of children’s health and psycho-social wellbeing, the importance of the “strong mutual attachments” between babies and their parents or caregivers, and the consequent importance for infant rights of providing both practical and emotional support to new mothers. This powerful mondial convention, and its committee, makes it clear that while all under-eighteens have the same rights because they are human children, it is only over time that they gradually become mature enough to understand and realise their rights ( the concept of “evolving capacities”. article 5). During this process parents (and others) must continually adjust the levels of support and guidance they offer taking account of children’s interests and wishes as well as their capacities to understand their own best interests and make decisions accordingly. Under-ones have the same rights as all older children because they are human, but they cannot exercise many of those rights for themselves because they are babies. Unfortunately many ordinarily well-intentioned adults, even those who claim to support the Convention on the Rights of the Child, fail to recognise and act upon the obligation that puts upon them. Some claim that the notion of universal human rights for infants is untenable because there are such wide differences in cultural traditions, and expectations and opinions concerning birth and the care and upbringing of young children. However that explanation is neither acceptable nor adequate because the CRC is sensitive to all such variations, recognising many different practices and opinions but always underpinning the full range with universal human rights. Article 19 which deals with discipline is a clear example. “Discipline” is a righteous part of parenting and most people maintain that it is parents’ right – even their duty – to discipline their children as they think best. But the real meaning of discipline is teaching children how to behave rather than punishing them for behaving otherwise. Article 19 does not specify what forms of punishment are or are not acceptable but stresses the underlying principle that children, like everyone else, have the right to protection from any and all forms of violence. Any right parents may claim to punishing children physically, to hitting or otherwise hurting them, to confining isolating or humiliating them, is therefore in direct conflict with children’s basic rights. Furthermore , while the laws of most countries extend far greater protection against being hit and humiliated to adults than to children, the special defences in the legal systems of some states that protect parents, teachers and carers from prosecution if the violence they do to a child is in the name of discipline, also breach the right to equal protection under the law. A more realistic reason for the tendency to ignore babies’ rights is that babies themselves tend to be ignored – or cooed over as if they were puppies not people. The committee on the Rights of the Child requires that “ children, including the very youngest children, be respected as persons in their own right…. “ but often they are not. Instead, babies are seen – if they are seen at all – as appendages or extensions or burdens of their mothers, or as schoolchildren-in-the-making. Every baby’s development crucially depends on what psychologists call “attachment”: human infants’ inbuilt drive to search for a consistently available person with whom she can make a close, secure, mutual relationship and to whom she turns whenever she is anxious or upset. A completing half; a partner in the business of growing up. In all cultures where studies have been done it seems that the mother is a baby’s emotional starting point if she is available at all. Given our recent and accumulating knowledge of the extent to which babies in the womb are influenced by mothers’ activities and feelings, moods and states this is not surprising,. But although mothers usually come first in a baby’s attachment hierarchy, they are not the only people to whom babies become attached. In the second year, given the opportunity, babies also make attachments to fathers that are different but no less powerful. It would be difficult to over-state the importance of attachment relationships to every an individual baby’s growth and development. It is through being loved that children become both loving, and lovable. It is through the constant experience of being respected that children come to respect other people. It is because their overwhelming feelings, their impulses and their wild behaviours are safely contained and controlled that they gradually achieve self control .And it is two or three years of such a relationship that brings them to a point where they begin to understand the why’s and wherefores of social demands; to empathise with other peoples’ feelings , and, even later still, to develop what we call “theory of mind” which is the ability to understand that other people may feel differently from herself and therefore to see different viewpoints. One of the most important and most visible impacts of the psychological context of a child’s upbringing is his self esteem. Any individual’s self-esteem is built out of, and held up by the esteem in which other people appear to hold her. If parents make demands on children which those children cannot understand – or understand but cannot meet – the children constantly fail and the parents are constantly irritated. And “constantly” is the right word. Research suggests that many parents of mobile babies or young toddlers issue prohibitions (“Stop that” ; “don’t touch”) every nine minutes on average, and the last big survey, undertaken for the Department of |Health showed that about three quarters of them, 75%, smack babies under two. Children who are treated as stupid, or naughty, or at least disappointing soon realise that the parents see them like that. And since babies and young children accept parents’ views uncritically, it is not long before they decide that the parents are right: they aren’t good enough; they are stupid…. Low self esteem often becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. To keep “taking a child down” – whether in some general way that makes her feel that she was an unwanted baby or that she was a disappointment because her parents wanted a boy – or in some more specific way such as calling her fat or stupid – is a fundamental violation of the child’s right to protection from mental or physical neglect or negligent treatment. under Article 19. Babies in action Babies cannot exercise their human rights or even survive without constant nurturance and protection, but they are not passive recipients of the treatment adults hand out to them. Provided there are one or more adults around who are willing, able and interested enough to watch and interact with them and form a mutual attachment, babies actively assert their personhood , their individuality and their needs , from the moment of birth. When a mother watches her newly born baby she sees a small and crumpled face relax and smooth itself after the stress of being born. She sees enormous navy blue eyes struggle to open. She sees and feels small hands scrabbling to get close and to reach her breast. She sees a person. When a father watches his hours-old child, awake and calm, he sees her look at him; and if he puts out his tongue and watches and waits patiently, she will put out her tongue in imitation. Definitely a person. Before long the baby cries. The sound is penetrating. It is the sound that most easily wakes women and passes biochemical messages to the womb and breasts of new mothers. . Clearly a person with needs and wants. Like a ringing phone a baby’s crying demands a response, but unlike a phone, “answering” may not be as simple as pressing a button. What does the baby want or need? The answer will not be in a leaflet, on the internet or in a book, nor will it be on a timetable or routine that says it is (or is not) “time for a feed”. It is not the clock but the baby parents must read. Something is making her uncomfortable or afraid. Is she hungry (no matter how long it is since she last nursed)?; Is she lonely for warm bodily contact? Is she cold or hot, has she got pins and needles in her arm, is the room too bright, the toddler too rough or loud, or is it some nebulous discomfort from within her? The baby doesn’t know why she is crying and her parents may never find out, but their efforts to comfort her keep a lid on her stress levels and, over months, teach her that when she is distressed she can count on them for comfort. All babies have a right to be attended to, nurtured, by adults, usually parents or parent figures, who act always in their best interests. Article 6 on the right to life, to survival and full development, stresses that while poverty and disease remain major obstacles to realising rights in early childhood, physical health and psychosocial wellbeing are interdependent and psychosocial health may be put at risk not only by poverty, neglect or abuse but also by insensitive treatment and restricted opportunities. Babies don’t only need adults to calm and soothe them when they are unhappy or afraid but also to play with them and stimulate them into states of joy, interest and excitement. Positive emotions are important for brain development and from very early in a baby’s life and within a secure attachment relationship he is developing the ability to communicate and to regulate negative and positive emotional states. In the first weeks of life the positives often take second place because new babies don’t fit easily into today’s post-industrial adult lives, especially their night-lives. In the weeks during which a baby gradually establishes diurnal rhythms and longer sleep spans, many parents truly suffer from the exhaustion of broken nights. Most people take it for granted that it’s up to parents to decide how to manage: whether to take the baby into their bed to sleep with them; to keep picking the baby up and feeding and comforting her, or leave her in her cot to cry herself back to sleep. But do parents have sufficient knowledge of their baby’s development to ensure that what they decide is the best for her? And do they have the right to do as they please without “reference” to the baby? It’s easy to see (and hear) that a baby who is left alone and crying hard feels extreme stress but many new babies cry hard quite often so it’s not so easy to know how much this crying matters. Acute and continuing stress starts a hormonal chain reaction that ultimately stimulates the baby’s adrenal glands into releasing Cortisol, (known as ” the stress hormone”) which floods her body and brain. Very high levels of Cortisol that build up over time (we don’t yet know exactly how high or for how long ) can be literally toxic to a young baby’s rapidly developing brain and her stress response system, (known as the HPA axis) will go on pumping out Cortisol until someone turns it off by responding to the baby, picking her up; making her feel better. There’s a great deal we don’t yet know about stress, cortisol and infant brains. It’s clearly not the case that all crying is damaging. Indeed it would be impossible to care sensitively for a baby who never cried at all because there would be no way of knowing when she needed something . However research makes it clear that repeated episodes of extreme upset, when the baby sounds out of control, hysterical, and is not comforted, can permanently affect her response system, setting it (so to speak) to “hyper-sensitive” so that, anticipating lonely despair she over-reacts to minor stress with major fear and anxiety, not only as a baby but as a child and an adult too. And there’s even more alarming evidence accumulating that sometimes a baby who gives up protesting when she’s left and goes quiet, may not have “learned to settle herself without adult help” but has learned that adult help will not be forthcoming and given up in despair. Parents have legal rights over their children as well as responsibilities for them, as Article 3 (and other articles) make clear, but those rights do not include a right to treat those children as they please. In fact the caring relationship between a parent and his or her baby is not one of right at all but of obligation. Parents have an obligation to provide the minute by minute care their baby needs but no right to override the baby’s own, separate rights in doing so. The CRC makes it very clear that from the moment of birth children’s individual rights must be recognised and protected, even though those rights may clash with their parents’ wishes. How easily and how well parents exercise their child’s rights on her behalf partly depends on the extent to which they are and have been able to exercise their own human rights. A mother who is a refugee from abuse in her own country, imprisoned in her home by domestic violence, or trapped in poverty and deprivation can do little to liberate her children to fuller lives. Likewise a mother who never developed close attachment to her own parents or whose growing attachment was broken when she was moved into care and then, perhaps, from one foster home to another, may be quite unable to provide secure attachment for her child. And the mother with mental health problems, who perhaps went through pregnancy resentful or afraid, found the birth process traumatic and lost herself in postnatal depression, may not see her baby as loving and beloved but as hating and hateful. Emotional and mental health barriers between mothers and children may be even more important than practical barriers, but they often go together and between the two, failing timely intervention and effective help, deprivation of human rights in one generation impinges powerfully on the next. And the damage may not stop with one baby. The removal into care or the placing for adoption of a child whose mother has shown herself to be neglectful, abusive or addicted, often leaves the mother with intense and long-lasting grief and anger which she may seek to assuage by getting pregnant again. If this new baby is taken from her immediately after birth the pattern is likely to be repeated, with exorbitant lifelong costs to that mother, each of those children and the exchequer. While the CRC makes it clear that from the moment of birth parents must recognise and protect children’s individual rights, even if and when they clash with their own wishes, it does not leave that responsibility to parents alone. There are frequent references to States’ responsibility to take measures to support and assist parents both with practicalities such as a reasonable standard of living and provision for health care, and with measures to foster their caring relationships. The Convention does not detail the plans and policies that states should adopt to meet these obligations, any more than it details the child rearing practices parents should adopt to meet theirs. Policies plans and practices are culture-bound. Only the underlying human rights are universal. The importance of the first year: intervention for prevention The policy changes that would do most to ensure children’s rights in the UK stem from a changing understanding of the nature and purpose of early intervention. Early intervention is so widely approved that it is almost a byword of policy documents concerning children. However it currently refers to intervention in the lives of children up to the age of seven or eight years, and seldom mentions those under one year. And the interventions discussed focus on solving existing problems or preventing future problems; encouraging the opposite. The positive aspects of being, or being with, a baby are seldom mentioned. The early interventions we need begin at or before birth and focus on positive prevention rather than problem-solving. Every Baby Counts. During this Millennium research has established that early experiences and relationships, in the womb as well as after birth, have a marked and lasting impact on a baby’s brain structure and development. A baby whose parents provide an early environment that is nurturing, enriching and predictable is more likely to grow into a responsible, intelligent and productive adult than a baby whose family is neglectful, chaotic, even violent. Such a baby is at risk of intellectual impoverishment and of growing up with poor impulse control and a tendency to be aggressive. His development is unlikely to be optimal and his chances of developing a mental disorder before he reaches adulthood are relatively high. One in ten children has a diagnosable mental health problem, learning disability or conduct disorder with a median age of onset of 11 for anxiety and impulse-control disorders and half of all lifetime cases diagnosed by age 14. Undisputed research has also established that psychological and social well-being are inextricably linked with physical health. Very early childhood experiences impact on physical health, growth and development as well as on brain development, mental health and behaviour, and all are exacerbated by familial factors such as poverty, homelessness and drug misuse. The Convention stresses all children’s right to the best possible health, and suggests that it is the responsibility of richer nations to assist poorer ones in providing health care. However there are significant differences between the experiences of rich and poor within this still relatively rich society. Pre-school children who live in deprived areas are 8 per cent more likely than children living elsewhere to be obese; 9 per cent more likely to be of a low birth weight; and 12 per cent more likely to be injured in an accident. Furthermore better health in the earliest years goes with better health in all the rest, with lower levels of diabetes, coronary heart disease and hypertension throughout life. These differences have enormous impacts on the whole of society as well as on the NHS. Social economists have worked out that ensuring the best possible start in life for all babies is as important to public health as managing physical health problems, such as infectious diseases, and chronic conditions, such as obesity. Services – and intervention where needed – in the perinatal (including the embryonic) stage and first year or two of a child’s and family’s life are especially likely to be effective because of the rapid and vital physical and biochemical changes taking place. Preventative measures during this period may improve the outlook and eventual outcome of some of an individual’s biological, psychological and social vulnerabilities. For example, international research has shown that babies who are born at a low weight, and those who gain weight very slowly, are at risk of a wide range of adult physical health problems ( including hypertension and strokes, obesity and obstructive airways disease) and mental health problems, ( including reduced cognitive function, ADHD and Autistic Spectrum Disorders). Clearly, then, any intervention which improves a baby’s intra-uterine environment or optimises the timing of his delivery, can be expected to have life-long effects on his physical and mental health. The more outcome research is conducted the clearer the case becomes for intervention to safeguard good health and optimise development from the beginning of life. Nobody who is concerned with child protection can doubt that preventive policies in the first year reduce problems and the demand for services in childhood and after. And nobody who has conducted cost-benefit analyses of such policies doubts that in the longer-term they are excellent investments. A Sinclair, a practical economist writing for the Work Foundation in 2007 was unequivocal “Dysfunctional parenting and children at risk represent classic market failure. This is where the government will get the greatest rate of returns for money invested.” Unfortunately in the short-term, the immediate, services to infants and toddlers are disproportionately expensive because the younger the children the higher the required ratios of trained adults. Established services are therefore vulnerable and new ones unlikely. Clear examples are universal health visiting and weekly well-baby clinics which have gone, and Sure-Start children’s centres whose number is dwindling rather than increasing. And it is not only current expense that is problematic but the fact that the government department or authority that pays the bills today is not the one who will see the savings twenty years down the line. Within the UK, and much of the post-industrial West economic stringency has stalled, even reduced, government support and assistance to all women with children and especially to those whose children are under school age. In order to ensure babies’ human rights we need more, more widespread and earlier services across the board : more midwives with time to attend to emotional as well as physical health. Readily accessible mother-and-baby mental health services including early recognition of post natal depression and its affect on babies. Special services for especially vulnerable parents – such as the very young and those with learning difficulties – and their babies. And specialised services for premature or ill babies or for those with disabilities, keeping them not only as physically fit as possible but also well integrated with their families. In addition we need early recognition and skilled help for babies whose need is less dramatic such as those who develop more slowly than others in all or in particular ways. Help for babies who are slow to develop expressive language, for example,. but not help when a child is rising three-years old and wearing a problem-label but when he is nine months old and not being much spoken to by his parents or carers. Likewise we need ongoing intervention and education for the parents whose not-yet-mobile baby is exceptionally heavy for her length, rather than only for parents whose school –aged children are morbidly obese. If the government chose to invest in these kinds of sensitive attention to babies and their families we would be doing what we know how to do; their grief and pain, demand for later services and long-term dependence on welfare benefits would all be diminished and the exchequer would save money – a lot of money. In the present financial and political climate, though, that is an “if” which seems insurmountably large. That is why it seems so important to back the research and development of trail-blazing national organisations such as the NSPCC. With their help perhaps a way can be found to establish and provide what is needed most of all: universally available friendly support and ongoing help and education for mothers and fathers who are only just coping or are sliding towards neglect. Positive Intervention as prevention. Surely that is the true meaning of child protection.?

This video gives an overview of research conducted at Baylor College of Medicine on how mother’s brains respond to seeing their infant’s face – either happy or sad. When mothers view their own baby’s smiling face, reward regions of the brain are activated, similar to a drug addict receiving a shot of cocaine!

Baby Face Natural High