Children in Care and The Children's Rights Movement 1970-1989
A condensed dissertation.
Introduction
In 1973, Hilary Clinton described children's rights as a “Slogan in search of a definition.” Within a British context, this quote still held salience because, the world over, turned their focus to children's rights but had a limited idea on what rights for children looked like. Between 1970 and 1989, Britain saw the rise of a modern children's rights movement that, for the first time, splintered, and a subset of activists were focused on the rights and experiences of children in care. One potential explanation for this splintering is that prior to this children had been treated as a homogeneous social group, with all the same needs however, activists were coming to the realization that some children needed different rights based on their societal and cultural standing. The period was also marked by significant legislative reforms, most notably the 1975 Children Act, which sought to place the welfare of children at the center of policy. However, despite this legal progress, children in care continued to face stigma, abuse, and neglect, often hidden from public view because much of the public and institutions held the view that once these children were out of immediate danger from their biological care providers, then they were in places of safety.
This paper examines the intersection of legislation and advocacy, asking how the modern children’s rights movement influenced the lived experiences of children in care. Drawing on memoirs, inquiry reports, and contemporary advocacy group publications, it investigates how children in care navigated a world in which they were often marginalized by both society and the very institutions meant to protect them. While legislative reforms laid the foundation for greater recognition of children’s rights, they did not immediately translate into tangible improvements for children in care, reasons for which will be explored throughout the duration of this paper.
Central to this discussion is the role of advocacy groups, which worked to raise awareness of the plight of children in care and to demand greater accountability from the state. Groups such as Leeds Ad-Lib and Who Cares? provided children in care with platforms to articulate their grievances and advocate for change, albeit with varying degrees of success. This paper also explores the language children used to describe their abuse, highlighting how euphemisms and silence often replaced direct action due to societal discomfort and lack of support structures as well as the lack of language surrounding the actions of abuse meant there was a lack of language which could be employed to action tangible and meaningful change.
The Modern Children’s Rights Movement and Legislative Change
The 1975 Children Act marked a critical turning point in British social care policy, especially for children in care. It reflected a growing recognition that children were not merely passive recipients of adult supervision but individuals with rights of their own. This shift was influenced by broader social movements advocating for the rights of marginalized groups during the 1960s and 1970s, particularly in the context of civil rights and the women’s liberation movement. However, children in care represented a unique challenge within this framework, as they were often seen as subjects to be managed, rather than individuals capable of exercising their own rights.
For children in care, the 1975 Children Act aimed to address these disparities between different groups of children by codifying the principle that the welfare of the child should be the primary concern in all decisions affecting them regardless of their living situation. For the first time, the Act placed legal obligations on local authorities to ascertain the wishes and feelings of children in care, acknowledging their capacity to contribute to decisions about their lives. This marked a significant departure from previous policies, where children were largely treated as passive dependents with little say in their own care arrangements. Children's rights activists were then given the basis to start working towards agency for children in care.
The Act was not created in a vacuum; it responded to growing concerns about the conditions in which children in care lived. During the early 1970s, several high-profile cases of abuse and neglect within the care system prompted a reevaluation of existing policies. Reports such as Jane Rowe and Lydia Lambert’s Children Who Wait (1973) exposed the failures of the foster care system to adequately address the needs of long-term children in care, sparking public outrage and calls for reform. These findings highlighted how the lack of consideration for children's emotional and psychological well-being resulted in long-term damage, reinforcing the need for legislative action that centered on the child’s perspective.
Despite its transformative potential, the implementation of the 1975 Children Act faced significant challenges. The Act’s progressive intentions were often undermined by the institutional structures in place, which were slow to adapt to the new legal requirements. Many local authorities lacked the resources or the political will to fully implement the provisions of the Act, resulting in uneven application across the country. In some regions, children continued to experience neglect and abuse, as the legal framework intended to protect them was not effectively enforced. This discrepancy between the law and its execution revealed the limitations of legislative reform in addressing deep-rooted systemic issues.
One of the most significant barriers to the effective implementation of the 1975 Children Act was the entrenched societal stigma surrounding children in care. As historian Laura Tisdall points out, the dominant societal perception of children in care was shaped by long standing prejudices that cast them as troubled or deviant individuals, rather than as victims of circumstance; one of the many discrepancies between the perception of children in care and children as a homogeneous social group. This perception was deeply ingrained in the institutions responsible for their care, including social workers, caregivers, and the broader public. As a result, children in care were often treated as second-class citizens, denied the same rights and protections afforded to other children. The stigma attached to being in care made it difficult for these children to exercise their newly granted legal rights, as their voices were often dismissed or ignored with no independent resources available to ensure the voice of the child was listened to.
This stigmatization was further reinforced by the hierarchical nature of the care system itself, which placed children at the bottom of the social order. Care workers, foster carers, and social services were often reluctant to give children in care any meaningful agency, fearing that it would undermine their authority. This dynamic was particularly evident in cases where children sought to challenge decisions about their placement or treatment, only to be met with resistance from those in positions of power such as carers, social workers and law enforcement agents. The lack of a robust complaints procedure within the care system meant that children had few avenues for recourse when their rights were violated, further entrenching their marginalization.
The slow implementation of the 1975 Children Act also highlighted the inadequacies of the legislative process in addressing the complex realities of children’s lives. While the Act represented a significant step forward in recognizing the rights of children in care, its failure to account for the structural inequalities within the care system limited its effectiveness. Advocacy groups which specifically worked with children in care played a crucial role in bridging this gap, working to ensure that the legal rights enshrined in the Act were translated into tangible improvements in the lives of children in care.
Leeds Ad-Lib, one of the earliest advocacy groups focused on children in care, was instrumental in raising awareness about the failures of the system. Founded in 1973, Leeds Ad-Lib provided a platform for children in care to speak out about their experiences and demand greater recognition of their rights. The group’s emphasis on the voices of young people themselves marked a significant departure from traditional approaches to child welfare, which had largely ignored the perspectives of children, therefore, instead of focusing on adult perspectives of what they believed that children needed, these advocacy groups focused not only on what children believed they needed but also what these children wanted. For example, children in care working with the Leeds Ad-Lib group needed clothes, arguably that did not call attention to their “difference”, but they wanted to purchase them from the same shops as their peers and not from a local government pamphlet. Through their magazine and public campaigns, Leeds Ad-Lib helped to shift the narrative around children in care, challenging the prevailing view that these children were merely passive recipients of state intervention.
The Who Cares? Project, launched in 1975 by the National Children’s Bureau, built on the work of groups like Leeds Ad-Lib by providing a national platform for children in care to share their stories. The project’s 1975 conference brought together over 100 young people in care, allowing them to articulate their grievances and propose solutions to the problems they facedThis conference led to the publishing of a charter of rights for children in care, which called for greater recognition of the individual needs of children in care, was a landmark moment in the development of children’s rights in Britain. The charter’s emphasis on the right to participate in decision-making processes, the right to privacy, and the right to be treated with dignity reflected a growing awareness of the importance of empowering children within the care system.
Despite these efforts, the impact of the 1975 Children Act remained limited in the short term. As Sonia Jackson argues, the failure of local authorities to fully implement the provisions of the Act meant that many children in care continued to experience neglect, abuse, and a lack of agency well into the 1980s and beyond. It was not until the passage of the 1989 Children Act that many of the rights articulated in the 1975 Act were fully realized, in terms of legally- children still remain as one of the most rights deprived social groups. The 1989 Act, which built on the foundation laid by its predecessor, introduced stronger safeguards for children in care, including the establishment of a formal complaints procedure and a greater emphasis on the participation of children in decisions affecting their lives.
The 1989 Act also reflected the growing influence of international developments in children’s rights, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which was adopted in 1989. The Convention, which enshrined the principle that children have the right to be heard in all matters affecting them, provided a global framework for the protection of children’s rights. In Britain, the 1989 Children Act brought domestic law into closer alignment with these international standards, further strengthening the legal protections for children in care.
In conclusion, the 1975 Children Act was a pivotal moment in the history of children’s rights in Britain, marking the beginning of a new era in which the welfare of the child was placed at the center of care policy. However, the slow and uneven implementation of the Act revealed the challenges of translating legislative reform into meaningful change for children in care. Advocacy groups such as Leeds Ad-Lib and the Who Cares? Project played a crucial role in pushing for the full realization of the rights articulated in the Act, but the systemic barriers they faced highlighted the deep-rooted nature of the problems within the care system. The eventual passage of the 1989 Children Act, along with the influence of international developments such as the UNCRC, represented a more comprehensive approach to addressing these issues, but the legacy of the 1975 Act remains a critical chapter in the evolution of children’s rights in Britain.
Perception and Advocacy
Children in care during the 1970s and 1980s were not only marginalized by the systems designed to protect them but also by society at large. A significant part of this marginalization stemmed from the negative perceptions that surrounded children in care. Often viewed as inherently "problematic," these children were seen as delinquents or as having come from "bad" families, an assumption that placed them outside the realm of the typical innocent child. This perception had a direct impact on how they were treated by social workers, care workers, and even their peers.
While children in care were often viewed as passive recipients of institutional care, this narrative overlooks the ways in which many children sought to assert their agency within the system. The concept of agency, particularly in relation to children, has been a subject of debate among historians and sociologists. Traditionally, children have been viewed as dependent and vulnerable, with little control over their circumstances. However, more recent scholarship has emphasized the active role that children play in shaping their own lives, even within restrictive environments such as the care system.
Historians of childhood, such as Harry Hendrick, have highlighted how concepts of childhood innocence and morality were intertwined with middle-class ideals during this period. The image of the “ideal” child was often one who came from a stable, nuclear family, was well-behaved, and conformed to societal norms. Children in care, particularly those from working-class or minority ethnic backgrounds, were seen as deviating from this norm, leading to their stigmatization. This perception was not just harmful in terms of social exclusion but also impacted the level of care and protection these children received. As Lemn Sissay wrote in his memoir My Name Is Why, children in care were often viewed as damaged or troublesome, which influenced how care workers interacted with them. Sissay’s experience of being treated as if he was a problem to be managed, rather than a child to be nurtured, was reflective of a broader societal attitude towards children in care during this period.
Advocacy groups such as the Leeds Ad-Lib Movement and the National Association of Young People in Care (NAYPIC) emerged to counter these negative perceptions and provide children in care with a platform to express their experiences. The Leeds Ad-Lib group, founded in 1973, was a pioneering initiative that brought together young people in care to discuss their concerns about the system. This group was particularly focused on the experiences of care leavers, highlighting how the care system often left young people ill-prepared for independent life. One of their key demands was for children in care to be treated with the same dignity and respect as other children, challenging the assumption that being in care was indicative of personal failure.
NAYPIC also played a crucial role in empowering children in care to assert their agency. Founded in 1979, NAYPIC was one of the first national organizations to advocate for the rights of children in care. The organization’s work was particularly significant in the context of a care system that often silenced the voices of the children it was supposed to protect. NAYPIC’s campaigns focused on ensuring that children in care were given a say in decisions that affected their lives, from placement decisions to education and healthcare. This was a radical departure from the traditional model of care, in which adults made all the decisions and children were expected to comply without question.
However, despite the efforts of groups like Leeds Ad-Lib and NAYPIC, the agency of children in care was still limited by the institutional structures that governed their lives. As historian Lucy Delap has argued, the care system during this period was primarily focused on managing children, rather than empowering them. This made it difficult for children in care to fully exercise their rights or take control of their lives. Even when children were able to articulate their experiences, they were often met with indifference or disbelief from the adults around them. This was particularly true in cases of abuse, where children’s disclosures were frequently dismissed or ignored.
Similarly, the Who Cares? Project, launched in 1975 by the National Children’s Bureau, played a crucial role in changing perceptions of children in care. The project organized conferences where children in care could speak out about their experiences, providing them with a public platform to voice their frustrations and demands. One of the most significant aspects of this project was its focus on amplifying the voices of children themselves, rather than relying on adults to speak on their behalf. This was a radical shift at the time, as children in care were often silenced or ignored in discussions about their own welfare. The Who Cares? Project highlighted the importance of listening to children and recognizing them as active agents in their own lives.
Despite these efforts, changing societal attitudes toward children in care was a slow process. As historian Lucy Delap has noted, children in care were often viewed through a lens of pity or contempt, rather than as individuals with rights and agency. This made it difficult for advocacy groups to gain widespread support for their cause. Even when children in care were able to articulate their experiences, they were often met with disbelief or indifference. For example, many of the young people involved in the Who Cares? Project spoke about how they were treated as second-class citizens by their peers and by adults in positions of authority. One participant recalled how people would often ask, "What are you in for?" as if being in care was akin to being in prison. This language of criminalization further marginalized children in care, reinforcing the perception that they were somehow responsible for their circumstances.
NAYPIC, took these efforts to a national level. The organization was instrumental in pushing for greater recognition of the rights of children in care, particularly in terms of their participation in decision-making processes. One of NAYPIC’s key contributions was its advocacy for black and minority ethnic children in care, who often faced additional layers of discrimination. The Black and In Care Steering Group, established by NAYPIC in 1984, held conferences and published reports that drew attention to the cultural needs of black children in care, highlighting how their identities were often ignored or undermined by the care system. This group’s work was particularly significant at a time when race and identity were becoming central issues in discussions about social justice.
Despite these advances, the advocacy work of groups like NAYPIC and Leeds Ad-Lib was not without its challenges. As historian Carolyn Steedman has argued, the discourse around children in care often framed them as victims rather than as active participants in their own lives. This made it difficult for advocacy groups to shift the narrative from one of pity to one of empowerment. Children in care were frequently denied the opportunity to speak for themselves, and when they did, their voices were often drowned out by the dominant adult narratives from those working in a professional capacity with children in care that framed them as powerless. Advocacy groups sought to challenge this dynamic by creating spaces where children in care could express themselves, such as the conferences, groups and activities, but the societal structures in place and lack of funding for such activities due to the idea they were not essential often limited the effectiveness of these efforts.
Overall, the perception of children in care during the 1970s and 1980s was deeply intertwined with societal attitudes towards class, race, and childhood innocence. Advocacy groups played a crucial role in challenging these perceptions and providing children in care with the tools to assert their rights. However, changing these deeply entrenched societal attitudes proved to be a slow and ongoing process. While organizations like Leeds Ad-Lib and NAYPIC made significant strides in raising awareness and advocating for the rights of children in care, the stigma surrounding these children persisted, limiting the impact of their efforts. The work of these advocacy groups, however, laid the foundation for future reforms and set the stage for a more inclusive understanding of children’s rights in the decades that followed.
The Language of Abuse and Barriers to Disclosure
One of the most significant challenges faced by children in care during the 1970s and 1980s was articulating their experiences of abuse- the very thing that took away their seldom rights. Whether sexual, physical, or emotional, abuse was a common reality for many children in care, yet it was often hidden or downplayed due to a lack of appropriate language, societal discomfort, and institutional silencing. The language of abuse, or rather the absence of such language, played a central role in maintaining the systemic neglect of children in care.
Children in care during this period frequently encountered barriers to disclosing their abuse, including a lack of trust in adults, fear of repercussions, and a broader societal unwillingness to recognize the pervasiveness of abuse in institutional settings. Historian Lucy Delap argues, the silencing of children’s voices, particularly around sexual abuse, was a product of both social and institutional failure. Many adults, including care workers and social services, were unable or unwilling to confront the realities of abuse, choosing instead to dismiss or minimize the experiences of children in their care.
Sexual abuse, in particular, was shrouded in silence during the 1970s and 1980s. As Delap notes, child sexual abuse was rarely discussed openly, even as reports of abuse in institutional settings began to emerge. Children who experienced sexual abuse were often left without the language to describe what had happened to them. The term "abuse" itself was rarely used by children; instead, they relied on euphemisms or vague descriptions that failed to capture the full extent of the harm they endured. This reliance on euphemisms and vague descriptions unintentionally created scope for the adult perpetrators of the abuse to then downplay the severity of their actions due to the lack of standardized terminology.
For example, in the Nottinghamshire Council’s investigation into historical child abuse, one child described how staff at Beechwood Children's Home would pick out boys at night who would be "gagged and shagged." While the child’s account clearly describes sexual abuse, the use of colloquial language minimizes the severity of the abuse and reflects the difficulty children faced in articulating their experiences. Another child at the same home referred to the sexual abuse they endured as being "fondled with," a term that again downplays the gravity of the situation because the vagueness of the actions allows those responsible and in positions of trust to circumnavigate the emotional ramifications of “fondelling”, which inturn removed any sense the child may have had regarding their autonomy. Furthermore, this language and the way in which adults did not attempt to get clearer ideas of the abuse that took place further contributed to the idea that the child, and children in care more generally, had no right to refuse the touch of an adult hence this child was not only violated from the physical act of the sexual abuse but also the lack of acurate language and empowerment to discuss the experience further violated their autonomy. The lack of justice is another way in which children in care continually experience the abuses taken against their rights. These euphemisms not only obscured the reality of what was happening but also made it easier for adults to ignore or dismiss the children’s accounts.
The inability to describe abuse in explicit terms was partly a result of societal taboos surrounding sex and sexuality, particularly in relation to children. As Mike Stein, a prominent social worker and academic involved in the children’s rights movement, observed, discussions about child sexual abuse were often avoided or brushed aside, particularly by those in positions of power because to address these concerns would involve difficult conversations surrounding the abuse of children, especially those within the care system. This created an environment in which children were not only afraid to disclose their abuse but also lacked the tools to do so such as acute language, therapeutic environments and trusted adults with the power to elicit justice for these children. Many children, especially those in care, had been raised in environments where discussions of sex were taboo due to the broader social and political environment which was leaning more conservative around issues of sex and sexuality, leaving them without the language to fully understand or describe their experiences.
Fear played a central role in preventing children from disclosing abuse. Many children in care were afraid that if they reported their abuse, they would not be believed, or worse, they would face retaliation from their abusers. This fear was not unfounded. Reports, albeit scarce, from the time show that when children did attempt to disclose abuse, they were often met with disbelief or outright dismissal. In many cases, the perpetrators of abuse were authority figures—care workers, foster carers, or social workers—whose word was given more weight than that of the children in care, simply due to their status and supposed authority.
In the Nottinghamshire abuse inquiry, multiple children reported that they did not disclose their abuse because they feared punishment or further mistreatment. One child, who was sexually abused by a fellow resident at Beechwood Children’s Home, did not report the abuse because the abuser threatened to kill him if he told anyone. Another child refrained from reporting sexual abuse by a staff member because he believed that doing so would result in him losing his weekend family visits. The threat of losing these precious moments of contact with family members was enough to keep the child silent, demonstrating how abusers could manipulate children’s vulnerabilities to maintain their control. The child in care's biological family would have displayed some form of abuse in order for the child to be placed into care initially so when they are placed into care in order to rehabilitate them, the children are abused further and thus are forced to oscillate between one abuser to another. Furthermore, the way that family, in this particular society, was prioritized above all so children were being socially conditioned to want family, and would forgo any justice, or discuss their truth of being abused in order to remain within the family network in whatever form they could.
The fear of not being believed was compounded by societal attitudes toward children in care. As discussed in earlier sections, children in care were often perceived as "troublemakers" or "delinquents," a perception that undermined their credibility when they attempted to speak out. This was particularly true in cases of sexual abuse, where societal taboos and the stigma surrounding children in care intersected to create an environment of disbelief. As historian Carolyn Steedman notes, children in care were seen as inherently flawed or broken, making it easier for adults to dismiss their reports of abuse as fabrications or exaggerations.
In many cases, the institutional response to abuse was inadequate or actively harmful. The Police Complaints Authority investigation into the Nottinghamshire abuse scandal found that police officers often viewed children in care as "juvenile criminals who habitually told lies," making it unlikely that they would take reports of abuse seriously. This lack of trust in the police further discouraged children from coming forward, as they felt that their complaints would not be taken seriously or that they would face further victimization for speaking out.
The institutional response to abuse was not just one of disbelief but also one of active silencing. Delap argues that the reorganization of social services and the criminal justice system in the 1970s did little to improve the situation for children in care. Instead, the lack of consistent procedures for handling abuse reports, combined with a culture of denial, meant that many cases were ignored or mishandled. This failure was particularly evident in cases of sexual abuse, where the cultural taboo surrounding the subject made it difficult for institutions to respond effectively.
The 1990 NAYPIC report, Abuse in the Care System: A Pilot Study, found that 65% of the young people interviewed had been sexually abused while in care, yet very few had reported it at the time. The report highlighted how children were not only afraid to disclose their abuse but also felt that there was no point in doing so, as they believed their complaints would not be taken seriously. This sense of hopelessness was compounded by the institutional culture of silence that surrounded abuse in care homes.
The lack of institutional accountability further contributed to the silence around abuse. Many of the care workers and foster carers who perpetrated abuse were able to do so with impunity, as there were few mechanisms in place to hold them accountable. When children did come forward with reports of abuse, the response was often to move the child to a different home or placement, rather than to investigate the allegations or remove the abuser from their position. This practice not only failed to protect children but also reinforced the sense that they were powerless to change their situation.
In addition to sexual abuse, children in care frequently experienced physical and emotional abuse, which was often normalized within the institutional setting. Physical abuse, in particular, was framed as a form of discipline or punishment, rather than as a violation of the child’s rights. Children in care were often subjected to corporal punishment that went beyond what was considered acceptable for children outside the care system. However, the institutionalization of this abuse meant that many children did not recognize it as abuse at the time.
In the memoir My Name Is Why, Lemn Sissay recounts how he and other children in care were frequently "knocked about" by care workers, a phrase that minimizes the violence they endured. This language of normalization was common among children in care, who often internalized the abuse as part of their daily reality. As Sissay explains, the care system was designed to manage children, not nurture them, which made physical discipline a routine part of life. Children were taught to expect physical punishment, and many came to view it as a normal aspect of their care experience.
Emotional abuse, though less visible, was equally damaging. Many children in care experienced emotional neglect, with their emotional needs being dismissed or ignored by caregivers. As Hope Daniels describes in her memoir Hackney Child, the lack of love, attention, and emotional support she received in care left her feeling isolated and abandoned. Yet, like many children in care, Daniels struggled to articulate these feelings as "abuse," as the care system prioritized physical needs—food, shelter, clothing—over emotional well-being.
The language used by children in care to describe their abuse—whether sexual, physical, or emotional—was shaped by societal taboos, institutional silencing, and the normalization of violence within the care system. The barriers to disclosure were significant, with many children afraid to speak out due to fear of disbelief, retaliation, or losing what little stability they had. Even when children did attempt to report abuse, they often lacked the language to fully articulate their experiences, making it easier for adults to dismiss or ignore their claims.
Advocacy groups like NAYPIC played a crucial role in challenging this culture of silence, providing children with the tools to recognize and articulate their abuse. However, the institutional and societal barriers to disclosure remained formidable, limiting the ability of children in care to fully exercise their rights. The work of these advocacy groups laid the foundation for future reforms, but the legacy of abuse in care homes continues to be felt today, as survivors continue to seek justice and recognition for the harm they endured.
Conclusion
The children’s rights movement of the 1970s and 1980s was a transformative period in British social history, marking a shift in how children were viewed under the law and in society. The 1975 Children Act, combined with the efforts of advocacy groups like Leeds Ad-Lib and NAYPIC, laid the groundwork for greater recognition of the rights of children in care. However, as this paper has demonstrated, these legal reforms were slow to translate into real change for many children in care, who continued to face abuse, neglect, and societal stigma.
Through an examination of memoirs, advocacy group publications, and official reports, this paper has explored the ways in which children in care articulated their experiences, often struggling to find the language to describe the abuse they endured. Despite the barriers to disclosure, advocacy groups provided crucial support to children in care, helping them recognize their rights and empowering them to take control of their narratives.
The challenges faced by children in care during this period remain relevant today, as contemporary debates around children's rights and child welfare continue to evolve. While the children’s rights movement made important strides in recognizing the agency of children, this paper has shown that much work remains to be done to ensure that all children, particularly those in care, are fully protected and empowered. Future research should continue to focus on the lived experiences of children in care, drawing attention to their voices and perspectives as agents of their own history.