The unpolished truth is that many children and young people are really struggling in out-of-home care, and so are adult stakeholders in their lives. It is not an overstatement to say that psychological safety is often compromised at all levels of the out-of-home care and child protection systems.

It is also true that this is a multifaceted problem that requires a paradigm change in the way we think about child protection and out-of-home care.

This requires decision-makers to critically examine the very basic assumptions upon which our child protection and out-of-home care systems sit.

One of these assumptions is that children and young people will be better off in out-of-home care in circumstances where they are unsafe at home. This is based on the related assumption that children and young people will thrive in a safe and nurturing environment with adults who are caring and committed to their care.

This latter assumption is easily demonstrable when children and young people grow up in a safe and nurturing home with their birth parents. It is not, however, easily transposed onto the out-of-home care system.

The truth is, these children have often suffered deep hurts that compromise their experience of psychological safety (and associated adjustment) well after they have been placed in out-of-home care.

Another truth is that the goal of attachment security, so often presented as the target for our endeavours in child protection, is unlikely to be achieved unless there is attachment repair with their birth parents.

This latter truth stems from a lack of conversation about the difference between attachment relationship and attachment style. See my video below where I begin to unpick this.