Letter from The Children's Project to the England Children's Commissioner

Professor A Aynsley Green
Children’s Commissioner
11 MILLION
1 London Bridge
LONDON
SE1 9BG

26th October 2007

Dear Professor Aynsley Green

PROTECTION OF INFANTS NOT APPEARING AS ACTORS ON TELEVISION

The screening of Bringing Up Baby by Channel 4 has raised some fundamental issues about how we as a society set about protecting infants from harm, and indeed, our willingness to be participants in the process.

Some years ago I attended a meeting at Portcullis House at which Peter Clarke the new Welsh Children’s Commissioner spoke. At the time the consensus in Government was that a Children’s Commissioner for England was unnecessary as there already existed a department and a Minister for Children. It is interesting to note one argument at the time - that the appointment of a Children's Commissioner for England would simply add an additional layer of bureaucracy without any real power.

How ironic that the welfare of infants - those most vulnerable in our society, yet too young to be called children - would appear to be outside the jurisdiction of the very person appointed to protect them. I can think of no more urgent issue to be placed at the top of (what must be) an already busy agenda than that of dangerously misguided practices being promoted as both safe and desirable in a television programme. And in complete contradiction of all current government guidelines and those of others such as Unicef, United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child and WHO.

Along with my colleagues who are concerned with the emotional wellbeing of infants, and therefore the future wellbeing of our society, I am astonished at the lack of any response from yourself about this fundamentally important issue – that of protecting infants. One that we all assumed you had been appointed to oversee and enable.

I would like to draw your attention to the statement about your appointment on the Every Child Matters website, from which I quote... "As part of his broad remit and function, the Commissioner works within the framework of the five Every Child Matters outcomes. These outcomes complement the rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the Commissioner must have regard. As the Commissioner is independent of government, he will decide what issues he will focus on as he discharges his duties." I suspect that within the last sentence lies the key. I do urge you to think about the importance of good beginnings for infants and the impact of this on future outcomes.

It is one thing to offer an ear to children suffering as a result of bad experiences when they are able to communicate this, but what of the youngest children for whom speech remains in the future, yet have the same emotions? Do they not deserve special protection from harm when it is highlighted and brought to your attention by those who understand?

We are happy to assist in any way we can.

With best wishes
Yours sincerely

Clive Dorman
Director and Co-founder
The Children’s Project Ltd

Sign the petition at 10 Downing Street here
Statements and information here
Encl. Statement for The Children’s Project re: Bringing Up Baby here

UNITE/CPHVA Statement (Unite the Union/Community Practitioner and Health Visitor's Association)

UNITE the Union, Who Cares? Campaign
Protecting Community Health Services

18th October 2007.

UNITE/CPHVA STATEMENT ON CONTROVERSIAL BABY TV ‘REALITY’ SHOWS

Health visitors feel that they must strongly protest about one of the mentors on Channel 4’s programme ‘Bringing up Baby’. Claire Verity calls herself a Maternity Nurse and boasts that she is paid £1,000 a day to get babies into a routine. The Nursing and Midwifery Council in a press release in response to the programme stated:

“Made-up titles like ‘maternity nurse’ are deceptive as they imply the person has earned qualifications that they do not have. This only serves to confuse the public and could prove damaging to the high level of trust that people have for genuine nurses and midwives”

Were Claire Verity an NMC registrant she could be facing professional misconduct charges.

Her advice to new mothers is not evidence based and runs directly contrary to the guidelines produced by the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths on reducing the risk of cot death. She is clearly unaware of the effect of ignoring babies on their brain development and the subsequent potential long term damage to their ability to form trusting relationships and enjoy good emotional health.

The latest programme in the series from Channel 4 once again calls into question the ethics of making such a programme. Voluntary codes of ethics are clearly not working. What is needed is an independently appointed ethics committee made up of informed professionals. Potential producers of programmes involving the filming of 0-17 year olds should be required to bring their plans for approval and to demonstrate that they will do no harm. Such a group could be appointed by OFCOM or the UK Children’s Commissioners and should include a child psychologist, child psychotherapist, child psychiatrist, paediatrician, social worker, health visitor, midwife, parent representatives and the NSPCC.

What we have seen on our screens promotes child care practice which research has demonstrated puts babies’ physical and emotional health at risk. Such practice should not be promoted to the general public and undermine the work of many professionals involved in the care of mothers and babies or current Department of Health guidance. Babies’ cannot give their permission to take part in such programmes and indeed it is unlikely that their parents fully understand the implications of taking part. Babies rely on their parents and society to protect them. There seems to be no protection from the makers of reality TV programmes. Unite/CPHVA raised their concerns to the producers early in the production process.

Unite/CPHVA would like to see the Children's Commissioners’ offices in the four countries in the UK putting their influence behind the establishment of a new ethical panel to regulate the involvement of children in reality TV programmes and has raised this with the English Commissioner

UNITE/CPHVA Professional Team

For further information, please ring:

Maggie Fisher 07918 608115 (Blackberry)
Cheryll Adams, Lead Professional Officer, Unite Health 07712 678 281 (mobile)
Shaun Noble Communications Officer 020 7780 4080 (direct line)
07768 693 940 (mobile)

Unite/CPHVA press releases can be seen on the CPHVA website: www.amicus-cphva.org

Unite (Amicus section) is the third largest union in the NHS. It has seven professional sections: the Community Practitioners’ and Health Visitors’ Association, the Mental Health Nurses Association, the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists, the Society of Sexual Health Advisers, the Medical Practitioners’ Union, College of Healthcare Chaplains, and the Hospital Physicists Association.

Unite was formed by an amalgamation of Amicus and the Transport and General Workers’ Union in May 2007.

Letter to the Children's Commissioner from the Association for Infant Mental Health (AIMH)

Professor A Aynsley Green
Children’s Commissioner
11 MILLION
1 London Bridge
LONDON
SE1 9BG

16 October 2007

Dear Professor Aynsley Green

Re: Bringing up Baby and the use of infants in ‘reality Television’

I am writing as Chair of the Association for Infant Mental Health (UK) to express the Committee’s heartfelt dismay at the lack of comment from your office in respect of the recent TV series Bringing up Baby, which followed hot on the heels of the BBC’s Baby Borrowers..

This programme employed (and, therefore, promoted to parents) a range of techniques. Some of these were outdated, such as leaving a baby to cry for lengthy periods in order to manage crying. Others had never previously been recommended by anyone and so can only be described as wholly experimental. Examples of these included deliberately avoiding eye contact with a baby and, most recently, witholding three quarters of new (and premature) twins' bottles at one feed in order to make them so hungry that they would take more at the next (and sleep longer).

In using these techniques the film makers seem to have completely disregarded current knowledge on brain development and how this can be adversely affected by the stress and trauma a baby experiences. We can only assume that those involved in making the programmes either did not know of this research (which in itself is worrying) or they chose to ignore it to make “good viewing” and boost their ratings.

To date there has been a lot of publicity about the programmes in this series. During the week following the first broadcast of Bringing up Baby OfCom received well over 200 complaints from the general public. The press has run extensive coverage and there is now a Downing Street petition with 2740 signatures (to date) calling for the greater regulation of programmes such as this.

In this context it is concerning that there has been no comment from you or a representative of your office. Your new website, 11 million, makes a great deal about giving children a voice. Sadly the babies being exploited, and put at risk, by this and other similar TV programmes are unable to email their views and make their voices heard. But it would be good to think that you could lead the way in the drive to afford
them better protection from this kind of sensational and exploitative television.

With best wishes
Yours sincerely

Dr Shirley Gracias MBChB DCH MRCPsych
Consultant in Infant Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Chair of AIMH (UK)
------------------------

Have you signed the petition at 10 Downing Street yet?

Or cut and paste the URL and send to everyone
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/parentingshows/

«Back to Bringing Up Baby info
«Back to our home page

Notes on Bringing Up Baby Week 4

Bringing Up Baby Week 4

These are notes from, and my comments about the programme. Whilst I have endeavoured to comment accurately, I cannot say the transcript is 100% accurate in every word, though the essence remains.

10 - 12 weeks

Very few surprises this week from our perspective. Not as overtly offensive as previous weeks, due mainly to the fact Claire Verity wasn't hands on with the babies. However, my worst fears have been confirmed. With an air of triumphalism the commentary repeatedly made reference to babies sleeping through the night at an unnaturally young age, with no reference to any research and reasons behind why this might be. The clear implication is that the routine method is by far the best. A glossy promotion of neglect as a method to produce subdued babies, which is then presented as a the most successful method.

This has been my worst fear, and one that I have presented to Silver River and Channel 4 for many months. Silver River, "I appreciate your concerns but hope that when you see the series, you will be satisfied that your fears were unfounded." Channel 4 "I appreciate your interest in this series and hope that when you have seen it, your fears will be allayed."

Possibly the most outrageous part of this series is that there is no point. The programme, with it's complete lack of any reference to research or understanding simply ends. Just a voice over to confirm it is the end and cue credits. In my view, completely indefensible.

This week is concerned with 'getting your life back'. A social life, a sex life.

10 weeks

Voice Over (VO) Already the routine babies are sleeping 11pm - 7am leaving their parents the most refreshed. But this is not enough for Claire Verity - 7 - 7. She wants to introduce solids.

(Reference to allergy risk, wait til 6 months)

CS (continuum mentor) ...from birth you feed from whenever the baby cues that it needs feeding and for at least the first six month all the baby gets is breast milk and then at about...

CV (incredulous) The first six months?

CS In fact that is what the WHO suggests

CV Well, I don't really care what they say. I've dealt with hundreds of babies and I know at 4 months they need something other than milk.

CS At 4 months?

CV I wean babies at 16 weeks or 16 lbs

CS I totally refute that

DH (Spock mentor) I have to say Claire I think it depends on the baby,

CV But at the end of the day my babies at 12 wks are going 7 -7 are yours?

Silence

----

VO Some people criticise the 50s routine, saying it works for parents but might not work for baby.

----

Sex

This isn't an area of expertise for me, but it was covered in the context of the 3 routines. I did notice during the interviews that babies were not relaxed (lights camera etc). One dad holding his baby, who was fussing and unsettled. When dad looked at his baby, he settled. When eye contact was lost, the baby became unsettled again.

----------------.

Social Life

Twins parents having a party

VO One of the main reasons the routine method became so popular in the 1950s is that promised couples who couldn't afford nannies precious time to themselves.

Mum: nothing will get them out of their routine. It's just amazing. I just don't know what I would have done without the routine.

CV At the end of the day the routine is all about getting the baby to fit in with your way of life. And if you want to have a party, great have a party. Those babies won't wake up, they'll be fed and put into bed at 7 o clock as normal and you can party all night. So it's all very much about the baby fitting into your way of life. Don't let it stop you having fun.

Best method?

VO 1950s is the passport to serious partying.

Mum: I can't believe that I've got 2 babies upstairs, 30 people inside and I'm enjoying myself it's fantastic, I've got my life back - a different life, but I got my life back.

Continuum mum: I got pregnant for a reason because I wanted to have a child so the last thing I want to do is put it in another room as some sort of punishment for being alive

------

Moving house

Twins (Truby King)

Mum: They say moving is one of the most stressful things you can do, but I think we may be able pull it off especially as the babies are in a very good routine.

VO (sister) takes them on ahead while parents stay behind to pack.

Mum: It's just important that she keeps them in the routine that we've been working so hard on these last 10 weeks.

VO trouble is, (sister) isn't a big fan of schedules for babies.

Sister: I still don't agree totally with routines but I agree with it because it's working for (mum) and it's important for me to stick to it.

CV If you choose to move home with one baby two babies even three babies, as long as you stick to that routine 100% you will not have a problem. Don't kid yourselves, if you just sidetrack slightly it won't work. 100%, and 100% only.

VO Under the routine its essential that the babies are fed every 4 hours without even a few minutes delay.
But with Leamington Spa a 3 hour drive away SIS needs to get going if she is arrive on time for the next feed.

VO If (sister) was sticking to the routine she would be pulling over now (10.50) and giving them their 11 am feed. But they're asleep and she decides to carry on to her destination.

Sister: We are I would say about 40 minutes away from home... so we're going to be late.

Arrive crying

In house, both twins hysterical

VO Following a routine is all or nothing and breaking it has dire consequences as sis is discovering.
Sister: It's 20 to 12 and they're used to being fed at 11. We'll get back on track at three, yes, I'm sorry.

-----

During the ad break is an NSPCC ad - 'be the click', about ending child abuse. Seemed somewhat incongruous.

------

The families meet up for the first time.

VO 3 months evidence for and against - which one has come out on top

The 1950s routine families had the toughest time at the beginning. Taking on the harshest method when it came to emotional attachment.

But the first to have babies sleeping through the night was the routine method. (Mum) was able to go back to work. They had a sex life and social lives.

Other mum: So you'd recommend it

Dad: You only have to go through the first 2 months from when the baby's born.

------

And so the programme ended. No conclusion, other than stating

VO Our experiment is over. We've seen that each method has its pros and cons so it's not possible to pick an outright winner. All our couples are firmly convinced that they chose the best methods. Perhaps in the end all you can do is pick the one that's best suited to you. The one that you think is best for Bringing Up Baby.

Open Letter to The Telegraph from the Association for Infant Mental Health (AIMH)

Sir
As a group of academics and professionals we are alarmed that Channel 4 is broadcasting such an exploitative parenting series as Bringing Up Baby the last part of which is to be shown tomorrow.Many techniques used in these programmes are outdated and completely fly in the face of our scientific knowledge about brain development in very young babies.

That anyone should be billed as an expert and allowed to promote ideas such as not making eye contact with babies and not comforting them when they are in distress is at best irresponsible and at worst dangerous. And to see these theories being put into practice with real babies in the name of entertainment is deeply worrying.

Last year, the Family and Parenting Institute surveyed parents to ask them their opinions on TV parenting programmes and some 83% of the respondents said that they found a technique in these programmes helpful to them. So with these programmes having such an influence on parents it is shocking that broadcasters are not exercising more responsibility.

Sadly the exploitation of both babies and children in the pursuit of high ratings is becoming ever more common: the BBC3 programme Baby Borrowers earlier this year was another case in point where babies and young children were "lent" to teenage couples in a programme that was intended to bring in viewers by being shocking.

We call on all production companies to stop making television programmes which give parents irresponsible advice and turn the suffering of tiny babies and children into adult entertainment.

Mary MacLeod,
Chief Executive, Family and Parenting Institute

Penny Mansfield,
Director, One plus One

Dorit Braun,
Chief Executive, Parentline Plus

Dr Shirley Gracias,
Chair, The Association for Infant Mental Health UK

Dr Cheryll Adams,
Acting Lead Professional Officer, Unite-Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association

Christine Bidmead,
Chair of Health Visiting Forum,Unite-Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association

Stephen Scott BSc FRCP FRCPsych,
Professor of Child Health & Behaviour, Consultant Child & Adolescent Psychiatrist, Kings College,London

Helen Dent,
Chief Executive, Family Welfare Association

Dr Shirley Gracias
AIMH UK
Knowle Clinic,Broadfield Road,Bristol,BS4 2UH
----------------------

Have you signed the petition at 10 Downing Street yet?

«Back to Bringing Up Baby on our website to view all statements

«Back to socialbaby.com home page