From Bambi To Boundaries: What Objects Reveal About Mind, Body, And Meaning, with Richard Rollinson

Objects that teach therapeutic care

Objects can be trivial, or they can be portals. In therapeutic care, they often become the latter: anchors that hold a story, a lesson, and a person. Across this conversation with much-loved veteran leader Richard Rollinson, we track how a toy fawn, a battered picture book, a chocolate egg, a skull, a crystal ball, and even a baseball field opened new ways to think about children’s minds, their lived bodies, and the spaces we create around them. The thread is simple but deep: meaning is not handed down by theory alone; it is made in the living day, noticed in small details, and held long enough to think. The value for practitioners is clear—objects invite curiosity, challenge certainty, and offer a shared language that can reach where instruction cannot.

Consider Bambi. In a cinema full of tears, a small group of traumatised children ask why others are crying. Their confusion exposes a gap many adults miss: when experiences have been chaotic, the link between event, body, and feeling may be dulled, scrambled, or defended against. A similar lesson sits in Rosie’s Walk, a wordless classic read night after night. Skip counting the apples and a 14?month?old protests—not with words, but with an elbow. Continuity matters, not as fussiness but as scaffolding for sense-making. Here, modern neuroscience helps: Damasio’s critique of Descartes reminds us mind and body are not separate realms. In care, that unity becomes practical: we observe posture, breath, pacing, gaze, tone; we look for shifts over time; we match routines that touch both soma and psyche.

Then there’s “cream egged.” A child hears “cremated” and turns it into Cadbury’s “cream egged,” folding death into the nearest sense-making shape. The point is not to correct, but to respect developmental logic while offering manageable doses of the world. Children personalise experience; they reach for images that fit the mind they have. This nudges us away from lectures and toward guided noticing: ask what they think an object means, let their story lead, and only then add gentle edges. The crystal ball adds a further caution—don’t predict outcomes for children. Resilience can surprise. What we can assess is the reliability of the environment: is there a plan B, predictable care, and room for growth when services wobble?

Boundaries matter, but so does play. A family photo at Yankee Stadium becomes a working metaphor: the field of play sits inside clear lines; there’s foul territory, umpires, shared rules, and a warning track before the wall. Good care is like that—boundaries, not barriers; containment, not incarceration. Gates open; people move in and out safely. Winnicott’s triad of work, love, and play becomes design criteria for homes, classrooms, and programs. We must build shared purpose and allow exhilaration without reckless harm. Early indicators of progress? Presence, ordinary participation, communication beyond meltdown or retreat, and being able to “live to learn” in a classroom without being pressed to master algebra before trust exists.

How to use objects with children? Select with care. Offer an invitation, not a test. Lay out a few items, ask what draws them, and wonder aloud together. Keep the doses small. Ensure the room itself is safe, predictable, and held by adults who can think. When a child says “I don’t know,” try pretend-thinking: “Let’s imagine you did know—what might it be?” Often that opens the ballpark. Over time, children take ownership of insights; they are not handed truths but discover them in a space designed for noticing. The real takeaway is a stance: collect moments, treat everything as potential material, hold meaning lightly, and return to the same row not because we failed, but because some coins are unearthed only on the second pass.

Listen here:

Watch here:

(Please note that due to a recording error this is a collection of images and audio from the podcast interview, as opposed to a usual video.

Transcript:

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start Podcast.

And when I’m talking about the object, I’m talking about the person for me that comes out of it. Now, some of them are a compilation, but many of them are of individuals. And the significance is the gift the individual gave me. It’s not about the individual, it’s about the gift they gave me that helps me to think about, has helped me to think about. Gosh, what could that mean? It’s important in itself, but it also highlights Descartes’ error. You wouldn’t think it, would you? A child’s book that has no words, and it upends René Descartes. Children’s life experiences are personal sized and personalized. We prepare them for death. And you know, again, I’m I’m I’m still I still got my L plates on in this in this town. And I I said, what? He said, well, look, when you think about it, what’s the best preparation for death? I said, I don’t really know. He said, living a good life, having a full life that you can really experience and engage with. I I felt quite encouraged that our work isn’t just to control and contain and maintain children, you know, within, you know, not putting a foot wrong, it really is to help them experience and develop their own capacity to have a good life, whatever that is. What I’m trying to offer is a different way of working that involves thinking and thinking about feelings.

Hello and welcome to the Secure Star Podcast. I’m Colby Pierce, and rejoining me for this episode is the much-loved former director of the Mulberry Bush Charity. Before I introduce my guest, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land that I come to you from. The Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains. And acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is Richard Rawlinson. Richard was, until the 31st of December 2019, the director of the Planned Environment Therapy Trust and remains an independent consultant in the fields of therapeutic childcare, education, and mental health across the voluntary, statutory, and private sectors. Richard has a long association with residential therapeutic communities, having worked at the Mulberry Bush for well over 20 years, and where from 1991 until 2001, he worked as its director. He was also director children and young people at the Pepper Harrow Foundation from 2001 to 2005. Amongst his activities in this field, Richard worked for many years with the Department of Social Welfare in Portugal to support the development of specialist therapeutic residential communities across the country. Richard continues to work in a consultant role with several organizations in Portugal and in Ireland. Unbeknownst to us, the video failed while we were recording this episode, leaving only audio. Thankfully, that was intact. If you take something positive from this interview, or from the podcast more generally, please like and subscribe. And share in your networks. This really makes a difference to the caliber of content I can continue to bring.

Well, welcome back, Richard, uh to the Secure Start podcast. Really looking forward to this one because um you got you’ve actually got something a little bit different and a little bit uh special for us this time.

Right. Well, I I I think what it is is I I guess to begin, I’ve always been curious about everything and anything, including about objects. And I’m talking about from very early in my life, but even more so when I was at university back in the States, I had a course. I I think I told you before, I studied Latin and Greek for many years, and there were associated programs, and there was a book called The Mute Stones Speak, and it was about Etruscan remains, pre-Roman remains, and I was quite gripped by how much the author, whose name I can’t remember over 45, 50 years, uh, was able to extract from just looking at these objects. And I always remembered it. And at my time at the Mowbray Bush, I, as you could imagine, I spent many years giving talks, lectures, writing articles, and for many times I enjoyed it. But sometime 30 or so years ago, I thought to myself, actually, probably about 85 to 90 percent of the people I’m talking to are on site already. There’s probably another five or so percent of people who might be able to think, oh, I’ll look into this. He said something interesting. And there was, you know, one, two, three percent of people where frankly I could stand on my head and whistle Dixie and they’d pay no heed to me. So I thought, well, what could I do? What would help me and what would help them do it? And I thought, okay, I’ve been collecting these objects, maybe I’ll just, and I’ve been keeping them for myself, these are objects all through my working career that were either given to me by children or reminded me powerfully of a child or a group of children I worked with. I thought, well, I can share it with them. Now I hastened to add, you may have heard about a worldwide excellence program called The History of the World in 100 Objects.

No, I haven’t heard of that actually.

Oh, it’s very interesting. I hastened to add, I was doing presentations five years before he put this together. So I taught him something well. And uh but I I had this growing collection, and it developed, and stop me if I’m going on too much about it. But when I first came to England, I realized there was a train from York to London, and it took about two and a half hours in those days. It’s about an hour and forty minutes now, but the great thing about it was they had a bar in the train with table to sit on. I thought, oh, I’m gonna go to do that. And I went down, and uh while I was wandering around to see the Garbo Film Festival, I I came across this play. It was called Brief Lives, and it was based on the stories by someone called John Aubrey, who wrote in the early 17th century about people, and he gave very brief life communications. I thought, well, that’s interesting. And this guy called Roy Dutrice was performing. And I went to the play, sat high up in the gods, and he came on looking very, very old and elderly, and the whole of the stage was covered with objects. And he’d pick up an object and he’d talk about it in relation to the brief life he’s writing about. I thought, this is amazing. It was so good. I stayed in London overnight, and I went and saw the play again. And what really, really struck me this time was he didn’t just talk about the same objects. He picked up different ones and spoke about it. So that was in 1970, the end of 1970. Good year then. In 2008, I was in Richmond in England, and I saw brief live was on with Roy DeTres. I thought he’d been dead for years. And I went to see him, and he was genuinely elderly, he didn’t have to use makeup anymore. And he did the same thing. And all that time he had been a one of my models about well, this is what you can do. You have this object, and you can you can talk about it. So, you know, I did that, and then Potter came along. Do you know what Potter I’m talking about? Harry. You’d think so, no. Dennis Potter. Dennis Potter. Hang on. This this is Dennis Potter. He is one of the best British playwrights. He died some years ago. He wrote wonderful TV plays, highly regarded, and he had things, and he was interviewed. Uh I now this is very interesting. He was interviewed by Melvin Bragg in 1994, two months before he died of cancer.

Well, Melvin Bragg is a name I do know.

Indeed, yes. And he just Melvin Bragg just finished doing his program that he did for about 30 years on BBC Radio. But he was interviewed by Melvin, and I remember it clearly, except I elided something because I also saw an interview with Dennis Potter in 1987 by Alan Yentub. And somehow in my mind, which I think is I elided them together. And I think the thing is, and this is an anticipation of my stories, there might be something about the stories that perhaps go over the same ground. And that’s exactly what Alan Yentub said to Dennis Potter. He said, You know, Dennis, you’re a highly regarded, but some people say you really just hoe the same row. And so my first object, it’s not a hoe, because my grandchildren took the hoe from their toy things. So I have this. And what he did, and this is how I lied to it, because when he spoke to Melvin Bragg, he had he was sipping um morphine because he was within two months of dying. Goodness. Smoking a cigarette, as he always did. But what what he said was, well, you see, the thing is they’re probably right. I am hoeing the same row. But the thing about it is, and he did the hoeing with his hands, and he said, the thing about it is I always feel I never get it quite right. So I go back to it, and I think there might be a precious coin there that I haven’t unearthed. So in this process, I always thought about Dennis Potter, extraordinary guy. He’s uh I have hugely annotated. This book of mine, of his is massively annotated by my notes. It’s falling apart because it was from 1994. And uh it’s just something about the way people look at the world, the work, their focus, their discipline, and themselves. And it brings out so much. So that that was it. And one last thing. By by way of prelude. Another object. Can you recognize?

R2D2?

R2D2. And when did you first see him?

Oh, I think it was at the drive-ins in probably 1977 or thereabouts.

Yeah, it was yeah, it was around 75, 76, 77. And what is, amongst many things, what is highly significant about that first film?

Oh goodness. You’re taking you’re taking I don’t know how much my analytical brain has developed by the age of seven

years.

It’s the first time a holograph was ever used in a film. Oh, okay. And there was R2, and he had he had been sent over to get some help from Obi-Wan Kenobi, and he was there, and out from him came a holograph of Princess Leah Organa saying, Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi, you’re only hope. And it was broken and damaged. Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi, your only hope. And I thought, a hologram, and it was of a person. And I think for me, the significant thing about my objects is they’re like R2. And every single object contains a person. And when I’m talking about the object, I’m talking about the person for me that comes out of it. Now, some of them are a compilation, but many of them are of individuals. And the significance is the gift the individual gave me. It’s not about the individual, it’s about the gift they gave me that helps me to think about, has helped me to think about, gosh, what could that mean? And notice things that previously I might not have noticed in the ordinary hassle and unfolding of a day and holding on to things and seeing, you know, the work, the life, the living day. It’s the material that we can use. And some things are actual material, but they are also material. So this is why I constantly collected these objects, not obsessively, they sort of came to me. As I say, some given, some I thought, oh, this reminds me. And and I I think it’s it helped me develop a way of thinking that at least tried to focus on what might this mean. It could be insignificant and ignored in passing, but what might it mean? And in this context of what I’m saying to you and what I’m presenting, I’m not here to persuade anybody. I’m not here to tell people, this is what I learned and this is what you have to know. No, it it has nothing to do with that at all. It’s just saying, let’s notice what’s actually going on in the moment, in the living day, in the context of things, not discard it as irrelevant, because even if it isn’t central to the work, it’s something about the living day shared, the work that we try to do, and there can be some meaning in it we might miss. And we neither overlay it or or dismiss it. So that that’s really what brought me along to this point.

There’s so many thoughts going off for me, Richard. Sorry, I might have I might have spoken over you briefly for a moment there, but uh I I think about um how the objects anchor you to perhaps anchor you to a story or an experience. I I’m thinking about the objects as metaphors. Yeah. I’m also thinking about what was the response of the crowd that you were you were delivering uh workshops to or or or speaking to uh when rather than give them the traditional um workshop seminar, you uh you you started talking about objects.

Well, uh very well received, and I’ve also done it with children and young people. And to be perfectly honest, they will often get it sooner than adults. Not always, but often. The only other thing is, like my grandchildren, they want the objects. So I sometimes have to negotiate after a presentation with young people, children especially, to say, you know, all right, this is it. If you give it back to me, I’ll make sure you get an object just like it for yourself. Because they want the object. And uh I was looking today for a couple of things, and there’s a few things missing from my collection because of my grandchildren. So the helicopter, I think I know where it is. But to be perfectly fair, I’ve nicked a few things from them. So don’t tell anybody, but my granddaughter’s uh queen’s it’s not a crown, it’s a bit smaller than that. I still have it, and I broke it. It’s in two pieces now, so please don’t tell her. And so the you know, this thing, I have a care bear there that belongs to uh I think it’s my daughter from many years ago. And uh but I’m putting it to good use. I’m taking good care of it as well, and we’ll get to the care bearer, I’m sure, sometime. But it it really is a a positive response. And I spoke to in Portugal to the Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists, and I spoke about a few other things, but talked about the objects, and at the end of it, several of them came up to me and said, This is the first ever lecture we have received from anybody that doesn’t make reference to theory and you know, uh articles and things, but it was really interesting. So, you know, so far it’s been well received. And uh because I think it’s just it captures people where they think, oh, I’ve been there. Yeah, oh yeah, I can think of something, and uh just encourages them to notice even more what they’re already noticing, or might not be noticing so much. I’ve never had anybody say that’s a lot of rubbish. They may have been thinking it, but hey, you know.

As I’m understanding it, it’s a it’s kind of an aid or a way of getting people to think more deeply.

Yes. And that’s our that’s our challenge. Yeah, to think and notice things. So shall I go into the first object they’re gonna talk about? I’d I’d love you to. So yeah, go ahead. All right. I’m just gonna turn around and pick up. This is the object. I

I also have a picture because uh I’ve only just reclaimed this from one of the younger grandchildren. And uh tell me what you see.

Uh well, I see a fawn. It could be Bambi.

You got it in one. So a long time ago, although perhaps not in a galaxy too far away, we didn’t have online films, we didn’t have DVDs, we didn’t even have VHF VHS tapes, and on an annual cycle, the Disney films came out. And every half term in Britain, a Disney film would come out, and as you can imagine, the cinemas were jam-packed, two daytime programs a day over the whole time. Absolutely crowded, and this is nineteen it was probably early nineteen seventy one. No, hang on. Went to the mulberry bush. So it was early nineteen seventy five. And we always at at holiday times we always had some of the newer children stay back with us at the Mulberry Bush to really get f more fully engaged in the work without the pressure of the the old hands, so to speak, of the children. And we went to see the Disney film. And on this occasion, it was Bambi. So here you can imagine a flea pit cinema in the small town of Whitney, absolutely jam-packed with children and young people, and then myself and Leslie and Marion, the grown-ups, with six Mulriebus children back for the half term. The film starts, it goes on and on and on, and it gets to, as you can imagine, the part in the program where Bambi’s mother is shot. And the whole cinema, bar a certain few, is in tears. Absolutely devastating. Absolutely devastating. And then one of the children, I’ll call her Jay, turns to me and says, Richard, Richard, why are the children crying? And I’m like, you see, Jay, Bambi’s mother’s just been shot. She says, Oh, oh. I said, but don’t worry. Bambi will be looked after. He’ll be safe. He’ll be looked after by his dad. He says, okay, and she turns over to the other children. She says, Hey, Charlie, Major, okay. The children are crying because Bambi’s mother’s been killed, but Richard says not to worry because he’ll be looked after. The whole rest of the cinema is complete wreck. And these six Mowbray Bush children are wondering what’s going on. This disconnection between psyche and soma, between life experiences and things, and more puzzled, not about what’s going on in the film, but the children that were crying. What’s that about? And it taught me a very, very powerful, powerful lesson about I I was gonna call it the disconnection. It’s not a it’s about a confused connection between life and what’s going on and what they can experience and how they can do it. And I always kept that in mind and was always mindful about how things you and I can take for granted as, oh, that’s a feeling thing, and this is how they connect it. It isn’t always that way with children who have suffered themselves from very, very severe experiences of hurt and pain and abuse and distress, and how they deal with it by a disconnect or the lack of a greater connection at the time between that, having feelings, showing emotions, noticing that, being able to talk and think about them. There’s work to be done in the work that we do to a different degree, but it was very powerfully brought to me by that uh going to the Disney program, Bambi, and you’d go in a very different cycle. You could not get a Disney film in those days, in the 70s, early 80s, except by going to the cinema and watching it. So it was a huge event. And uh so that that was about the fawn and Bambi. And and and then we go. So uh again, perhaps nothing hugely profound comes out of this, but I’ve never forgotten it. I’ve never forgotten it.

While you’re while you’re locating the next one, a recent guest on the podcast was Peter Blake, and he was talking about the mind of children and uh how um and I reflected in that conversation that that he was saying about how difficult it can be to for to get people to consider that children have a mind. And I reflected that yes, they they probably see children, adults typically see children as um needs, behaviors and emotions, but maybe not consider considering their mind as well. And I think that that’s a beautiful illustration for the fact that children have minds and and their minds are different based on uh life experience and we need to take in consideration not just their needs, emotions and behaviors, but also their minds.

Right. And and maybe I’ll jump to it now, because I have a book. I’ll tell you. It’s it’s a book. It’s it’s called Ro Rosie’s Walk. Rosie’s Walk. It’s not even the original. Our original Rosie’s Walk that I read to my daughter two thousand times is so fragile now. We got we got another one for the others and the grandchildren, and now this is fragile as well. But it’s important in itself, but it also highlights Descartes’ error. You wouldn’t think it, would you? A child’s book that has no words, and it upends Rede Descartes. Um, Antonio Damasio, who you may have read and heard of, he he he wrote a book called Descartes’ Error, and the thing about it is books

never lend people books, they never return them. And I lent this one. I mean, my shelf is full of books people lent me, and I’ve never returned, but I don’t have Descartes’ error, but I do have the Malazius book, The Feeling of What Happens, and it’s fascinating. But let me tell you this. So, my daughter, who is now 46, she started off as a baby, and for many years we would read a book to her, and as is often the case, it’s the same book, night after night after night. And there and this this is about Rosie’s walk, and it’s about a walk a hen takes out of her house, uh in a little you know, hen house, and around, and there is a fox that tries to get her, and they’re constantly up-ended, and there are a few words in it, but of course, as most parents do, we elaborate the story and we point out the things and say things like, Oh, look, there’s a bird on the top of that tree. Watch out, Rosie! Oh, look, isn’t that oh, what’s gonna happen there? Oh, look at the frog, he’s jumping. You do all that, and you do it one day and two days, and a century and three quarters later, it feels like, you’re there, and it’s been a very long day for Richard. And I go up and I’m reading Jesser’s story, and I try to be quick. I try to be quick, and I don’t count the apples on the apple tree, and I carry on to the next page, and suddenly I have this little creature giving me the elbow, still still drinking her milk bottle, so I guess she was about 14 months old, because she was breastfed, but and I knew the message was I had to go back, I had to go back and count the apples, because there’s something about the continuity of making sense about it. And I thought about that and I thought about it, and of course, we’ve read lots of books to children we’ve looked after, not from our own family, and it’s the same important thing about keeping going, getting it, getting it right in the way that they can experience it. So there is some kind of continuity that adds meaning to it. So, you know, I did all that with Rosie’s Walk and you know, survived to tell the tale, and in my own way, really enjoyed it and didn’t mind being told you didn’t count the apples. But I thought about that and I read Descartes’ error afterwards, and it touches on, I say this because you you mentioned the mind, because what Damasio points out is Descartes’ error is he separated psyche and soma, mind and body, made them quite separate things. And the point my daughter at the age of 14 months was telling me, and that Antonio Damasio is telling us, is that is an error. There is a connection between mind and body, between what’s going on here, what’s going on there. There’s something that makes sense, and it has to be both mind and body and continuity. I I know the analogy isn’t exactly right, but I I think you get what I mean. How important it is to keep a connection between these things, and how important it is in our work to keep a connection between mind and body and the care, the actual care of a child and young person, and what else is going on. And uh I could talk more, but I think just at this stage, it it’s something about being reminded powerfully about the connection of the wholeness and wholesomeness that you were talking about earlier, the mind of a child. It might not be available to do, you know, uh quadratic equations, but there’s a mind there. There’s a mind there. And we have to connect that to it. So that’s it.

That connection is often represented in how the children present. And and I pay a lot of attention and and in my psychotherapeutic work, the first quarter of my notes is really what I observe about the child’s presentation.

Yes.

And that’s that’s that connection that you’re talking about with between what’s going on inside and what is manifestly representative of that in the their their actual physical presentation. And what I hope for is a change in that presentation over time.

Well, in indeed, as and when they need it. And you know, I get I guess what I learned was that I can be helped by a 14-month-old child to remember that connection. So it it’s an interaction, but certainly once we learn these things and the young people can remind us about it, it’s it’s extremely helpful, and the you know the material is there. L let me get you another one. Okay. Oh, here it is. This is a very, very ancient. I don’t know if you have them in Australia. This is a Cadbury cream egg.

I think we do, or at least we do. Okay.

Right. I they they are omnipresent nowadays, as it wi with with everything, but in the past they would be available from about uh Valentine’s Day till Easter. It was a cream egg. And uh so 1980. We’re coming back from the Christmas holiday in maybe it was 81. The Christmas holiday in 1980, yeah, yeah. And I’m sitting with Lulu and Joanna in between me on on the Mulberry Bush bus. And we’re traveling along and they’re chattering away, and then Joanna says, These aren’t the real names, I hasten to add. She says, Oh, oh, yeah. That beetle dydy was killed, wasn’t he? And I said, Yeah, John Lennon, yeah, it was sad. John Lennon got shot. It was early December 1980. I think I said, Yeah, it was really, really sad. So Joanna’s about two years older than uh, what did I call her? Lulu?

Lulu.

And uh Lulu sits there and she and she looks up to me and she says, Have they eaten him yet? And they do this, and then the children start talking about it, because I said, What? What what? What do you mean, have they eaten it yet? Well, a human being is meat, and people eat meat. Have they eaten him yet? And I remembered they had been talking some of them have been talking about becoming vegetarian in the previous turn. And I thought, you know, here’s my opportunity to be Joe Therapy. I sort of put my arm over Lulu and I said, Well, look, Lulu,

actually, there’s a difference. You know, it it’s not quite the same way because when a person dies, and I start describing, I didn’t I didn’t even get into um okay, I’m in the senior moment here. I’m talking about digging a hole and burying the person. And as I’m telling her this, I think, well, this is pretty weird too, when you think about it. And and Muella, who’s sitting in the seat over me, comes up, and in those days the children had a sign going, uh and she said, Oh, Richard, you got the choke. I said, What, Moo? She said, John Lennon wasn’t buried, he was cream egged. Not cremated. And I and you know, I’ve never looked at a Cadbury’s cream egg without thinking of that. But it shows you the a child’s eye view of the world and the well, they’re not even parapraxies, they’re things about hearing things and thinking, well, okay, I don’t know what cremated is, but I know what a cream egg is. And so for them, John Lennon became a cream egg.

Wow.

And uh I I I didn’t take it upon myself to dissuade her. All I have always remembered is it’s children’s life experiences are personal-sized and personalized. They they they they come at a time when they make the best sense they can about something that doesn’t make sense. And you know, here am I, I’ve made it to 77 sunset strip at my age, and still, you know, I can’t give you an explanation about death. You know, uh, I’ve got people on my list, I hope but I’m hanging around for a few more years. But there is this thing about how do you make sense of something like that? And I thought Moo had as good an idea as anybody else when she was seven years old. So I didn’t try to dissuade her. I said, Well, there you go. I hasten to add, I’ve never eaten a cream egg since then, just in case. But I always this this egg is God, I don’t know what’s inside it. It’s many, many years old now.

I was wondering about that, and uh it reminds me a little bit of Edward DeBono’s book, Children, is it called Children Tell Stories? No, Children Solve Problems, and and my recollection it’s a very long time since I I had any interaction with that book, but he had children draw solutions, I think, and then describe the solution to the problem and um and they’re remarkable. Again, representing children beyond needs, needs and wants, eh, uh behaviors and emotions, but that that there’s a mind in there and and the the ways in which that mind works are remarkable.

Yes. And and and they are, as you said, they’re working to make sense, they’re using their mind. And the last thing Moo needed for me was to say, I don’t talk nonsense. It’s not creamag, it wasn’t cream egg. That’s ridiculous. We’re saying, gosh, I hadn’t thought about that. And you know, there might be different ways, but okay. Um because there was no need. She was seven. And when she was eleven, she’d probably put that aside and think about something else. And uh but it it it’s just noticing how the children say it, so we’re um we’re mindful of what they might embody in objects themselves when they’re trying to make sense of a world that, you know, even for the well-developed, that can sometimes not make sense. And for these children who have experienced a hell of a lot of strange things, frankly, most of what they could think has it’s perfectly justifiable that they might think something like that. It’s wonderful, they can think about anything. So that was that was that was quite quite something. Um the other thing, a lesson. This is my new iteration of a crystal ball. Sadly, the original crystal ball didn’t last from uh actually it was it wasn’t my grandchildren, it was from another child who picked it up and it was delicate and dropped. But a crystal ball. And in the first year and a half, I was at the Mulberry Bush. There was there there was a pair there were siblings there, and they both left at the same time. I’m still in touch with one of them, again, 52 or three years later. And uh and so we’ve talked about this story, and and and it was when they left, the child I was still in touch with, I was very, very concerned about her. Because from my l limited experience, I thought she would struggle massively to manage. I was very, very new still.

Couldn’t have been earlier than 19, you know, uh no later than 1976, probably, when she left. I was very concerned. I thought, you know, how can we let these this child go and how how can we do it? But I was up to see, well, there’s a certain time when we have to help them move on. Okay, but I’m worried. And I was worried for her because I thought she would struggle while her sister might make it. Years later, I realized that actually, for whatever reasons, she’s doing fine and still is, and her sister struggles still. And it was a very powerful reminder to me. Don’t make predictions about the future of children. Yes, if there’s absolute risks in the provision they’re going to, you can say this is concerned. But the this this kind of tendency I had in my novice state to think, oh my god, she ain’t gonna make it. No, that’s all about me. It it there was an experience that was had, and it was a good enough experience to make use of alongside, you know, what not for the first time and not for the last, I’ll talk about Winnicott’s notion of the urge of the human organism to health. And it made a difference. So I have never I it was a really early lesson and I’ve always followed it. I never make predictions about the outcome for children and young people in and of themselves. There are times when I say, that’s your plan for this child. You want to do it? I hope you have a plan B. Because I’m not worried about the child. I’m worried about how this so-called service is going to be sustained. So um I have to take very good care of this because I don’t want to have to get another one. It cost me two pounds. No, oh. I s I I suddenly thought. A skull. A skull. Yeah. Did I talk about the skull in the time I spoke with you last?

I don’t recall so.

Okay. Stop me if I have, or he lied, the skull. Again, in the first year and a half I was at the Mowbray Bush, there was this uh Christian brother who was the head of a school for adolescents who are troubled and at times troublesome. And he used to visit the Mowbray Bush regularly. He was, I can’t remember his name, but he was very he was he was a really interesting guy. And you know, again, in my naivete, I said to him, I said, So so what do you and your team do with the young people you work with? And this was around the breakfast table, you know, we’re sitting there, and he said, He didn’t have this. He said, We prepare them for death. And you know, again, I’m I’m I’m still I still got my L plates on in this in this town. And I I said, what he said, well look, when you think about it, what’s the best preparation for death? So I don’t really know. He said, living a good life, having a full life that you can really experience and engage with. And I thought, oh, it’s a very interesting way. And he said, and I said, What do you talk to them about it? They said, Well, we don’t we don’t push it, but we do say, hey look guys, we got a life and we can get on with it. And there’s so much that could happen to us that’s good. There’s other things that could happen that aren’t so good. So let’s live a good life as long as we’re here. And of course, philosophically, we know there are many people who talk about living the good life while we’ve got it. And again, um where is it? My book, Dennis Potter, talks about it too. He he’s very profound about a number of things, saying, you know, a good life. We’ve got one life, you know, don’t know what’s going to happen afterwards, but we got it. So let’s let’s see what we can do with what with what we’ve got now and notice what we’re doing. And and again, it’s it’s I I felt quite encouraged that our work isn’t just to control and contain and maintain children, you know, within, you know, not putting a foot wrong. It really is to help them experience and develop their own capacity to have a good life, whatever that is. And a good life can sometimes be challenging, but it also means enjoyable and interesting and and delightful at times. And so a good life always has to contain not just boundaries, but space. Space we can ha inhabit in that way. And so that’s you know, a good way to prepare with death for death. Um, hopefully for many, it will be a lot longer in the coming. But whatever we’ve got, it’s I certainly have found it valuable to remember that, you know, we got we got one shot at this. Let’s let’s see what we do. So that’s the skull. This is not my original, it’s a really tiny one that I had, but this was my son’s, and when he left home he didn’t take it, so I’ve commandeered it. So that’s one of the things I’ve taken by way of objects. Um I I look, I don’t I can go on, as you can imagine, but if if you have any thoughts, observations, questions, challenges, jump in anytime.

You’ve talked about, yeah, you so you you’ve talked about uh getting to a point, and I’d I’d rather think I’ve got to a similar point of uh in the speaking part of your career, the public speaking part, where you just where you just thought, well, you know, uh I I’m almost getting bored or with doing it this way. Uh it what what are some of the other ways that I can do it? And and you went down this path with telling stories and perhaps in reflecting on your own uh observation of of um I can’t rem recall his name from earlier in this conversation, but the the the live performances you’d see in that yeah. And um I I wondered what the reaction of the adult audience uh was to that. You s you mentioned a little bit about the college of psychiatrists, but I I wonder what adults how they react and what they seem to take from these stories around with the with the object as being kind of like the anchor point.

It varies, as you can imagine. And I think in some groups and

groupings I’ve presented to there is if there’s a resistance, it’s because perhaps for the first time in their life they’ve had somebody present something that’s not telling. And actually, particularly in Portugal and Ireland, sessions with adults in this kind of work we’re doing, the the training they get is a telling. And it actually borders on telling off. And they are not used to somebody coming in and saying, you know, look, here’s some stories, and when they and I say any questions, and they’ve got none, I say, Well, look, what do you think? Am I talking rubbish? They’re not used to it, they have never been asked for their views, they’ve been told. So it varies. Other people say, Oh, gosh, that’s really interesting. I never really thought about it. But in a way, as much as I love to be liked, I I you know, I’m not doing it to get that. What I what I’m trying to offer is a different way of working that involves thinking and thinking about feelings and making those connections. And sometimes it takes time. That’s why I say some of the children’s in the groups I’ve done it to, they get it straight away. You know, they’re there, oh yeah, yeah, no, that that that’s right. Yeah, that that’s right. Yeah. I had uh can’t I’m trying to think of a I told them about a story when I was very little. When I was about I I don’t think I was even three. And, you know, Saturday night television. I lived in a big apartment in New York City, and you know, my parents would be in the other room listening to the you know the variety shows on a thing. And I heard them start talking about Arthur Godfrey, who was the guy who hosted it, had fired Julius La Rosa, who was the main singer. Yeah, here am I, at best three years old, and I’m still awake listening. What they burned him to death? I I I thought television wasn’t real. I they burned him? Oh, God, you know. And when I was telling that story, the children guy said, Oh a child said, Oh, I know. Yeah, I had the same thing. Because um my parents were talking, they lived near Birmingham, and he said, My parents were talking, and they said so-and-so got the sack. And the only thing he knew about the sack was some people who had litter of puppies or cats, some people would put it in a sack and throw it in the canal and drown them. And he thought that this person had been put in a sack and thrown in the canal to be drowned. And and it’s you’re at that age. I didn’t go into my parents and he didn’t go into his and say, What wait, wait a minute, hold on here. What’s this? They burned them to death? I thought this was television, and he didn’t go to his parents and say, Well, why did they throw him in the canal? Why did they put him in the sack? So you’re you’re left carrying that thing. Anyway, it’s one moment. It wasn’t a daily diet of that kind of stuff, but I’ve always remembered it, you know. 74 years later, I still remember that story. Didn’t traumatize me in the end, but I thought, this is a very weird world that I live in, and it’ll take time to make sense of it, and I’m still working on that one.

So it’s interesting the way you talk about almost like a novel approach. And I’ve talked about this quite a lot in this podcast with various guests about thinking about the work, you know, actu actually thinking about what you’re doing, not just um going through the motions as such, you know, just being very much pr procedure bound. And um and I and I think that’s our that that’s our challenge. I I think the first challenge is for people to have the time and space to think about the work that they do, and the second is the capacity. Um I always say, and I’ve always found, well, I have always found, and in recent years I’ve said, is that some of the most difficult questions that I can ask an a group of adults uh to answer are ones where they have to think or at least think a bit differently to the standard mantra as such. So for for example, when I ask adults, how would we know that our this service is making a difference in the life of the child? How do we know how would we know what would we see if um if this intervention was working? And I I’ve observed that to be one of the most difficult questions for for adult practitioners in this field to be able to answer. But children get it, you said.

No, they do, yeah, they’ll they’ll they’ll tell you. But but also, I mean, you know, look, Jerry, very briefly, and I’ve written papers about this, there’s no doubt you have, but one of the things is when you have a child, a population who have suffers things strongly, who have had little to no continuity in their life, the only thing predictable was the unpredictability of adults, and communication and engagement wasn’t there. Some of the earliest measures of how we’re doing is the extent to which the child and young people are able to share in a in a common experience of being together and living an ordinary day, communicate in ways other than in impulsive behaviors or complete withdrawal, and for many of them, which is not attend school. Being there. Now I don’t mean again, they’re not there in quadratic occasions necessarily, though some can. Some can. I can’t, but they they can. It’s a sense of being in a place and they’ve been helped to learn to live with themselves enough so that they don’t just live with other people, but they can live to learn. Yeah. And you know, those those are you know early indicators and measures, they’re not the only ones, but you know, continuity and a degree of predictability and an opportunity to play. And actually that’s a good segue into my next object, if I may.

Yep.

But unless you want to say something, because I can wait. I mean, I’ve been talking all the time.

No, no, no, no, you go ahead.

Right here. Right. This this is a precious family photograph taken in Yankee Stadium on a particular lovely summer day when my children were young, so we’re looking at probably the early 1990s. And it’s the New York Yankees against the Boston Red Sox. It would be like Liverpool, Everton, Man United, Man City. And in the third inning, the Yankees are already winning 2-0. And uh my wife took the photo, and we’ve had we all yeah each member of the family has a photo of this, and we have t-shirts about it. Now, it’s not just a sports game, because I also have oh, it’s not gone. Honestly, these grandchildren. It’s gone. All right, I’m gonna have to talk about it with this because I had an enlarged copy made and it was gonna so I’m gonna talk about it while while this is up. All right, there it is. Oh, okay. And and I think what you see is a stadium surrounding what is called the field of play.

The field of play. And inside the lines that you can see going out from here outside, that’s that’s the field of play, the fair territory. And the other side is the out-of-bounds area. Or in the game, foul territory, but you know, there you go. You can still you can still move in it, and you’ll notice you see the blue wall at the back, all the way up, I don’t know, over here.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah. That that’s i if if anybody plays the ball or hits the ball into that area, it’s a home run or a ground rule double. But the thing is, the players in the field can go after that ball, but if they go after it with reckless abandon, they might run into the wall. So there’s a line of dirt there called the warning track to warn them that you are running out of space in the field of play. And if you keep going, you’re gonna bang into it, and it won’t be a good experience for you. So, and I’m sorry I don’t have the big picture, but look, the the thing is, it’s it’s it’s a it’s a baseball stadium and a sport, but actually it’s it also communicates our world of work, boundaries, and space. And of course, Winnicott was always very clear. The capacity to play is an essential element in the healthy human being. You know, when they asked Freud in the early 1920s, you know, what do you think you’re doing with this psychoanalyst, psychoanalysis and things, he said, look, if oh no, they said to him, what makes the healthy man? I mean, this was 1921. And he said, the healthy man is one who can work and love. And quite some years later, Winnicott said, Yes, work and love and play. And so I think that the environment we have to provide has to allow for a large field of play, and it’s real, and it’s active, and there are boundaries, not barriers. Because at those boundaries that I was talking about, at the end of the game, there are gates that open up, and it lets people walk onto the field of play and walk out. So they’re not barriers, they’re there as boundaries to remind people this is the field of play, and there’s a lot of space. Don’t go running into that wall or through it because you’re out. You’re out of it. And there’s something about a common purpose as well. The team in the field absolutely requires the team at bat to be playing as well. There’s no game if you don’t. And there are referees or umpires, as they call it, without which it can’t happen either. And there are adults who, in their own way, referee the world of engagement and disengagement, and without them there’d be nothing. So there’s something about that picture for me that’s so important for our family, that also reminds me of our world of work, where we have to create an environment where there’s task and purpose, and it can be play and playful, and people can enjoy it. And you’re in there for the moment, and there’s a way out, a proper way out. You don’t have to crash into the wall, you don’t have to scale the fence, you can get it. And it’s for a time, and you’re not there always. So it’s just one of these things that we can think. So, how do we create a field of play? And I don’t mean reckless abandon, though there might be a little bit of it. When you see the Mulberry Bush children cycle around the site, you think there’s a bit of reckless abandon there. But it it is something about creating conditions where we can be playful in so many ways, including being together. And also work together well. Work together well. And well, I don’t want to make too big a deal about it, but I think there’s there are things in the worlds that we in in our world that we inhabit that can remind us about not just the joy and the enjoyment of recreation, it’s about living, changing, growing, and the space that can do it. And in the absence of boundaries, what would you know about what to do? So if as long as the boundaries can define space and you can leave when you’re ready to, it’s it’s fine. When there’s barriers, it’s it’s a difference between containment and incarceration. Yeah. In incarceration, you crush the sense of containment. The containment can be the holding experience. The incarceration is something that prevents you. It’s the restriction without and the constriction without any sense of. Finding oneself and finding a way with and through to somewhere else.

You’ve spoken, Richard, about y uh telling these stories to children, and I guess I just I wonder, like our listeners or watchers might do as well, what are the circumstances in which you think it would be um beneficial to tell these stories about objects to children?

Well, first of all, I’d select the objects, and some I I wouldn’t use, as you can imagine. And I I think the ones I’d select were the ones that can, you know, evoke a bit of interest in class. Um I would also be guided by the adults, the grown-ups working with them. Uh uh, you know, there’s a time for everything. And I think in the right circumstances, one can tell stories and a whole range of stories that they would be able to digest. Again, it’s that principle that Winnicott talked about presenting the world in manageable doses.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I wouldn’t go in there guns ablazing, so to speak, and piling all these things out and say, Look, man, I’ve been around for all these years and I go all these things, and everything tells me a story, and sit down and listen to it. I I put them out sometimes, and the children I invite, well, children and grown-ups, I give one or two introductory things, and I say, Well, here they are. Is there anything that interests you? And I, you know, I’ve got plenty of others, and you know, they’ll they’ll pick something out and I’ll say, Oh, can’t quite remember what do you think that might be about, about people? And you know, and I and actually I can’t quite remember in the moment what the object meant to me. And uh, and this was a few years ago, not just now. I got more. But and they’ll start saying, oh, well, maybe it’s about this. They said, gosh, that’s and which is what I’m wanting them to do. Think about it. I said, well, that’s really interesting. I’d never thought about that before. That’s a great idea. So it’s about engagement rather than just telling them. Because real storytelling, as you all know, isn’t just about telling people. It’s about engaging with them and inviting them into and you mentioned the story.

Uh you sorry, we’re just getting a little a couple of little transmission transmission glitches um that time. So I apologise if it felt like I was talking over you, but I I it’s interesting what you’re talking about in terms of thinking, and you mentioned containment a little bit earlier, and I I and I Beyond, of course, saw the two things as going together, or that that thinking was the outcome of containment. So and I was thinking in relation to children, that um the capacity to think um and including thinking about these objects and tell a story about these objects themselves is enhanced by them being in a safe, contained environment.

Yeah. Absolutely. I I think they need to feel some degree of safety and security, some degree of belonging, being a part of something and some others rather than a part from. And then I think communication. You know, you bring a group of children, young people, or adults who’ve had little to no experience of participating in real communication. Yeah, it’s like giving somebody, you know, uh a motorcycle who hasn’t learned to use a tricycle yet. So, you know, you you you have to present that world in manageable doses. And uh and in conversations, I don’t know again if I said this the other time we spoke, but you know, sometimes with children, I’d be talking about them and I’d be saying, Well, look, come on, what do you think is really going on? What’s what’s really troubling you? You know, it it’s not the door that you’re kicking that’s the problem. You know, the the door isn’t your problem, what’s going on? And a number of them would say, Well, I don’t know. I don’t know. And I and I say, Well, okay, but you know, but let’s think about it. And some will. And others say, Oh, I just don’t know. And I would sometimes say to them, okay, let’s play a game. What? What I said, let’s pretend that you do know. And if you were pretending you did know, what would you say? And yeah, they you know, they give you like, what the hell’s the matter with you? I said, No, it’s it’s just a game, it’s pretend. You don’t have to do it. You say, well, try. And you know, more often than not, the child says something that actually, even if it doesn’t touch fully directly on what’s bothering them, they bring you into the field of play, the ballpark. They say, you know, there’s this. So, okay, so you’re really you’re you’re you’re upset with Steve because he’s not repairing your bicycle. Yeah, right. I say, okay, well, okay, you know. You do know Steve is downstairs with seven other children. And did he tell you to go away, he’s never going to repair your bicycle? No. So, okay. It’s just inviting them into some way of trying to think about it. And sometimes, let’s pretend, you know, other times they’ve been told to F off. But, you know, it’s a work in progress, really. So it it it’s just finding ways with the belief that given the effort, and it takes time, we know it takes time, with the belief that if you respectfully recognize the capacity of someone of whatever age to at least say something that can be real and genuine about them and what’s troubling them, it will come. We might have to model it, we might have to do it many times, but eventually I’m saying eventually, for most children, young people, eventually something comes and it’s theirs, it’s not ours. We didn’t give it to them, we provided an opportunity, a space for them to actually connect with something they felt before, and it may have been too unspeakable in the previous circumstances they had, but here, as I was saying, everything’s material.

It is speakable and thinkable if it’s in service to trying to understand.

It’s a wonderful spot, I guess. There’s no good spot to bring this conversation to a close, Richard. I think I and and anyone who’s listening to this um conversation would be keen to sit here for another couple of hours and hear about other objects. But um I’m mindful that um we’re getting very close to the day and your bedtime. So I think thank you for coming back on again, Richard. It was thank you. Thank you. It was wonderful. Yeah.

Oh, great. Okay, well, another time perhaps, but now thanks very much for that. And go well through your day, and I’ll get a couple of hours sleep for you, okay?

Awesome, that would be I need a couple of hours more, thank you.

Okay. All the very best to you and your viewers. Thank you.

Richard’s Bio:

Richard has a long association with Residential Therapeutic Communities, having worked at the Mulberry Bush School for well over 20 years and where, from 1991 to 2001, he was its Director. He was also Director, Children and Young People, at the Peper Harow Foundation, from 2001 to 2005.

Richard qualified as a Social Worker with an MSc from Oxford University in 1983, following the then Part 1 training in Child Psychotherapy at the Tavistock Centre. In 2005 he completed the Ashridge MA and training in Organisational Consulting. He has been Chairman of the Charterhouse Group of Therapeutic Communities and for many years the Chairman of the Care Leavers’ Foundation. In 2014 he became Chair of Trustees at the Mulberry Bush School, only recently stepping down from that position, while remaining a Trustee with a special brief for the links and development of the contacts with and participation of former pupils. He has published numerous articles and continues to lecture widely across the UK and Europe.

Related Content:

If you enjoyed this podcast, you will also like Richard’s first appearance on the podcast.

You can listen here:

Watch here:

John Whitwell:

Listen here:

Watch here:

John Turberville:

Listen here:

Watch here:

Links:
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/TheSecureStartPodcast. Podcast Blog Site: https://thesecurestartpodcast.com/

Disclaimer:

Disclaimer: Information reported by guests of this podcast is assumed to be accurate as stated. Podcast owner Colby Pearce is not responsible for any error of facts presented by podcast guests. In addition, unless otherwise specified, opinions expressed by guests of this podcast may not reflect those of the podcast owner, Colby Pearce. Finally, all references to case examples are anonymised to the extent that the actual case could not be identified, or are fictional but based on real-life examples for illustrative purposes, or have client consent to talk about in an educative context.

From Chaos To Calm: Routines, Relationships, And Real Change In Residential Care, Tom Ellison

From Chaos To Calm: Routines, Relationships, And Real Change In Residential Care

Quality residential care for children who have experienced trauma starts long before any therapy session. It lives in the culture of the home, the clarity of purpose, and the daily rhythm that makes life predictable enough for healing to begin. Experienced organisations describe how knowledge seeps into the “wallpaper” over time: shared language, trusted rituals, and the confidence to pause and think. Reflective spaces matter because staff carry complex feelings that need sorting, not suppressing. Without room to think, practice drifts into firefighting. With it, teams align on a simple aim: help each child feel seen, safe, and understood, then build connection on top of that safety.

Understanding isn’t a soft extra; it is the work. One story shows why. A boy became volatile every evening around bath time. Staff felt scared and resentful until a life story worker shared a missing piece: as a younger child, he was punished with cold baths and held underwater. That single fact transformed how the team felt and acted. They softened bath time, stayed close, and let empathy guide tone and timing. More than tactics, it was the emotional shift that eased the storms. When we know a child’s story, our stance changes from “stop this” to “I get why this is hard,” and behaviour often follows. Curiosity beats control because it treats the child as a mind with a history, not a set of problems to manage.

Routines and rituals are the unsung heroes. They create a steady beat that steadies bodies and minds. Meals at known times, a Sunday ritual everyone can name, bedtime that doesn’t slide around, and roles that are clear reduce guesswork and anxiety. Predictability is not dull for traumatised children; it is relief. The running of the home should be “boringly” consistent so relationships can carry the colour. When homes rush to add models, labels, and jargon, staff drown in concepts and children still don’t know what happens next. Start with the basics: reliable routines, agreed boundaries, and a shared understanding of the primary task. Add reflective practice to tune those basics to each child.

Admission itself is a major intervention. Moving from one world to another is unforgettable, and how a home claims a child sets the tone for belonging. Sending a key worker to meet, bridge, and “claim” the young person helps answer the first-night question: who will keep me alive here? Belonging grows faster when one adult becomes the gateway to the wider team, rituals signal “you are ours,” and the environment feels warm and homely. This foundation lets therapy take root. As clinicians remind us, therapeutic impact depends on dose and context; a technique without the right environment often does nothing. A well-held daily life is already therapeutic, and it makes formal help far more effective.

Staff hold a parental role, but an enriched one. Ordinary parenting isn’t enough when early adversity has shaped development. Children may function well in calm moments, then buckle when routines touch old fears. Authority therefore must be consistent, compassionate, and shared across the team. Boundaries like phone use or curfews are hard to hold if staff disagree or legal orders sow confusion. Still, good parenting means sometimes saying no and always explaining why with care. The aim is not compliance for its own sake; it is safety, dignity, and the experience of being held in mind. Over time, kids test, watch, and learn: do you keep me safe when I lose it? Do you stay when I push you away?

Ask alumni what mattered and you hear the same themes: love, belonging, and small, joyful moments. A weekly quiz show, a silly in-joke, a hot chocolate after a hard evening. These memories are not incidental; they are the texture of healing. For new workers, this is good news. You don’t need perfect theory to matter. Bring steady presence, protect routines, get curious about one child’s story, and use your authority like a good parent would: firm, fair, and warm. Keep building that reservoir of knowledge, together. The child won’t forget how you made their world predictable and how you made them feel understood. That is what transforms futures.

You can listen to the podcast episode here:

You can watch the podcast episode here:

Transcript:

Colby: 0:00

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Tom: 0:04

Organisations that have been engaged in this work for a while tend to be pretty good at it. I’ve been involved in a number of startups over the last few years. And there are things that you can do that help. Regardless of what the therapeutic or the theoretical framework you use is, it’s good to have a therapeutic or theoretical framework. It’s good to have terms of reference that everybody can agree upon. The thing that works really well is a basic framework of this is how we work and some clarity about what are we here to do. And in above all, a space to think and reflect. The idea that we pause in the work regularly and we think about what’s going on for the children and what’s going on for us and what’s going on in the space between. What might staff starting this work need to know, and what might foster care need to know? The thing that I would say is the thing that you’re striving for is understanding. If you’re an RCW, you residential care worker and you started in the work last week, a good place to start is what would give me a better understanding of one of these children. The act of admission is a massive intervention. If you know the stories of the children, it will affect how you are with them. But actually, I think there’s a huge value in structure and boundaries and routines and rituals and the care plan and the the running of the home should be quite boring. Because the children, because it should be so predictable. You know, if you want to establish a children’s home that that and you want it to be beyond the ordinary, there needs to be a lot of focus on okay, what are our rituals and routines and uh how do we deliver those consistently? And how do we get to understand our children better? And by definition of therapeutic is it’s the conscious use of relationships to deliver transformation. But I think sometimes you need to be reminded, and your custodians of childhood. So you part of your job is to give these children a childhood that they will remember fondly. If the thing that has led you to being where you are is a failure of parenting, the solution should be some kind of parenting. What everything we do has the potential to be something that that child makes use of later. As an adult, I think children have a sense of people trying, even when they’re getting it wrong.

Colby: 2:45

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast. I’m Colby Pearce, and rejoining me this episode is highly regarded social care consultant in the UK, Tom Ellison. Now, before we begin our conversation, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands that I come to you from, the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. So as I said, I’ve got Tom Ellison uh rejoining me for this episode. And uh Tom previously was on the podcast for episode 27. So um if you want to hear more me uh read out his bio. Um we’re streamlining streamlining it a bit this time, but uh his bio is there, it will be in the notes for this show. Um, and it was episode 27. Welcome, Tom. Welcome back. Thank you. Thank you. It’s good to be back. Yeah, no, it’s good to have you back because I do I did feel at the end of the last podcast interview that we we kind of only got the conversation half done in a way.

Tom: 4:14

Yeah, well, I think um there was there was a big focus on leadership, and and I know you wanted to come back and talk about uh the work with children and and what what effective residential childcare might look like. Um so happy to be back.

Colby: 4:33

Well, that’s probably an excellent spot to start uh in terms of um I’m interested to hear your views, and I’m sure our listeners and watchers will will be too about what effective, what quality um residential care looks like, and is there any distinction between quality and effective? I’m not really sure, but happy to hear your views.

Tom: 4:55

Yeah, I think um there’s a big invitation to jump into talking about attachment and trauma and therapeutic frameworks, etc. But I think the there’s there’s a few things that you just can’t help noticing when you’ve been around the work for a while. So one is um organizations that have been engaged in this work for a while tend to be pretty good at it. So so you know, I saw your interview with uh John Turberville and Kevin Gallagher, who each come from you know their organizations have been around a while, certainly decades. And the there is something about organizations doing this work accumulate knowledge over time. And that you know, one of the phrases I’ve used is it kind of gets into the wallpaper. So it’s not so much about, yeah, there are individuals you could point to and say, okay, that person’s been around a while, that’s a wise head. We could go and ask them an opinion on an issue. Um, but there is something to be said for um the culture that develops over time, and that’s you know, that that’s partly shaped by the theoretical framework, the consultants, the the people leading those organizations. It’s also shaped by the children. So there’s a organizations respond to what the children, the challenges that the children bring through the door, and and you know, uh uh a good organization or a good uh children’s home is responsive to the children, not just in terms of uh what the children tell you they need or they want, but what the children show you they need and they want. And so, you know, one one of the again, you know, if I’m visiting a service, a children’s home or an establishment, I’ll quite often ask the manager how long have you been here? And and and you can draw conclusions from that. You you you know that that there are there are few substitutes for experience and and time travel. That said, there are things I’ve been involved in um a number of startups over the last few years, and there are things that you can do that help, you know, and so um regardless of what the therapeutic or the theoretical framework you use is, it’s good to have a therapeutic or theoretical framework, it’s good to have terms of reference that everybody can agree upon, and you know, there’s various. If you sort of wander around and do a tour of the UK, there are various, and there are various kind of levels as well. There’s there’s uh so, for example, in the last few years, there’s um a training called pace training, which is you know, um it it it’s kind of a training in how to be around children, involving things like being curious and being empathetic, and things that are just a good idea if you’re gonna be around children who’ve experienced trauma. But I I would treat that as that’s almost universal now, it’s almost a standard training for anybody working in residential, but then there are layers beyond that, and and quite often one of the phrases I use is there’s levels to this game. There are there are, and and certainly uh in my career, I it it’s almost like layers of understanding as you travel. It becomes deeper and deeper and deeper. And the the the danger is that you hear about that there’s so many theoretical frameworks and models that you can choose from that you end up overloading the staff because a senior a senior manager comes across pace training or social pedagogy or pillars of parenting or secure base, and they think, oh, well, I’ll bring that one in, and then they’ll bring another one in, and then they’ll bring another one in. And then before long, the staff at the call face are a little bit overwhelmed, and they’re mixing up their metaphors, and a lot of jargon’s getting deployed. And you’ll know from the last podcast, I’m not particularly a fan of jargon. That that, but I think the thing that works really well is um a basic framework of this is how we work and some clarity about what we are here to do, and you know, above all, a space to think and reflect. So whether that’s um individually with staff in supervision or whether that’s in moreover, whether that’s in a a group setting, and and that gets called different things depending on the organization, might be reflective practice in one, it might be called dynamics in another. But the the idea that we pause in the work regularly and we think about what’s going on for the children and what’s going on for us and what’s going on in the space between. And so um when I when I’ve been helping, as I have been recently, organizations to establish new services, they’re the kind of uh the reference points that I go to. The first one being what what’s it for? What what what what does what is what is this service, children’s home? What is it for? What’s it to do? What’s the problem that it solves? And then build out from there. But universally, if you were, you know, in terms of working with looked after children, universally, there’s some level of trauma and attachment there. It might be variable in how it manifests, but but it’s there. And so therefore, I would always kind of build in the idea of well, there needs to be reflective spaces, and there needs to be somewhere where the staff can reflect on and think about the experiences of the children. And again, you going back to you know the organizations that you would say, oh, they’re pretty good at this stuff. That’s where they’ve iteratively done that over decades. The thing that’s allowed that culture to develop so that they’ve got good at doing the work is that there is an iterative process of things happening between the staff and the children, and then the staff having a space where they can think about it and process it and develop a greater understanding of what’s going on for the children.

Colby: 11:35

I talk about this a bit in my own work, that um one of the things that you you if you work for a long time and if an organization has it has existed for a long time, um, serving a community, then you have the opportunity to reflect back on not just immediate or short-term impacts of the work that you do, but longer-term impacts uh of the work that you do as well. So you build up a bank of knowledge really about what what works and doesn’t work and what lot long-term outcomes, medium to long-term outcomes look like for um for the for the for the people that we’re serving um just based on on being around for a long time and trying different things and seeing how those things work or don’t work. And I know, for example, um you you mentioned the mulberry bush, that they have um with Richard Rawlinson and and others, they have become quite proactive in terms of reconnecting with alumni of of the mulberry bush, um adults now, parents, you know, husbands and wives, um who came through that system and and are still they’re still getting this, they’re getting longer-term feedback about the experience of young people as they’ve gone through the mulberry bush, which um which can only really um add to that important practice wisdom that develops over time.

Tom: 13:19

Yeah, I think that you someone said to me if I look at um residential care in the UK as a whole, there are fewer, I’m gonna say controversial things now, but there are fewer specialist providers than there used to be. So that so it if I think 15-20 years ago, there were a number of providers, usually operated by their founder, who were um doing innovative and creative things, some that you might agree with, some that you might find a bit more controversial, but they were all trying to pioneer um working with children who’ve experienced trauma and who are in the looked-after children’s system. Um I think increasingly there are I think something’s happened over the last 15 years where there are fewer of those organizations than there used to be. Um, I think that it creates a space because it creates an opportunity for other people to jump in who’ve got ideas. But I think that someone um said to me a couple of years ago, we’ve forgotten how to do this work. And he’s not talking about individual establishments, he’s talking about as a sector, the the knowledge, um, the reservoir of knowledge in the sector is less than it used to be. And I I kind of agree with that, that um the thinking that gets deployed in some organizations is not as great as it should be. And so where organizations are, um, as I know some of some of the organizations you’ve been in contact with are um gathering and preserving knowledge about this work, that becomes important. Because it’s because where do where do you where do you go to learn to be good at this work? Because an awful lot of um practice has been distilled into short courses, and we’ll deliver a short course and you can go off and do therapeutic work with children without an understanding of actually it’s an ongoing process, you never actually get there. You never you in you know when you got in touch and said, Well, let’s do another one where we talk about the children, I always feel a bit um I’m much more nervous talking about the practice with the children than I would be about talking about leadership because I feel like with the children, you never actually get there. You you’re you’re just constantly trying to you’re constantly trying to get closer to something that’s helpful. And um so what one of the things that you know in terms of experience, one of the things that I went through is as I got more knowledgeable in this work over decades, I felt guilt that I wasn’t good enough in the beginning. So you so you look back to the children that I worked with in the first, I don’t know, three, four, five, six years in residential practice. And the more sophisticated me can look back and go, Yeah, that wasn’t that wasn’t good enough, that wasn’t, that wasn’t great, or you weren’t connecting, you weren’t being still enough, you weren’t um you weren’t understanding what that child was trying to communicate to you. And so that experience for me is the idea of well, you never actually get there. There is no you don’t arrive, you don’t get to I am now um you know maximum proficiency at working with you know children who’ve had negative experiences of uh early childhood. You you don’t get there, you try and you try and get closer to it.

Colby: 17:14

There’s a couple of things that you said in there and in your earlier response that um I’d pick up on um and love to talk more about. I love the idea of reservoir building a reservoir of knowledge, a reservoir of knowledge. I think that that’s uh gets to what I was you were saying and what I was taking from what you were saying in my my previous reflection. Um I agree that I think what comes from experience is the understanding that there are enduring sensitiv, I call them enduring sensitivities. There are um enduring sensitivities that the children carry from their experiences growing up and uh including their adverse experiences that they take with them through life. And um that makes sense because we all we we all consider that we are in some way shaped as a person by the experiences that we had growing up as well as our contemporary experiences. Um and I think I think it’s really important to know to have a really good target in a sense or a realistic a realistic goal for the work that you’re doing. Otherwise otherwise you you can become you can feel inadequate, you can become despondent, you can feel um like you just you just haven’t done enough for the children. And without without hogging the floor too much, I see this a lot with in foster care, where where foster carers are um brought into the system both with with the ideas that they come with and with ideas that um that exist within child protection and out-of-home care systems, that you know, kinda all the children need is a you know is a loving home, uh a bedroom and a loving home and and all will be put right. And I don’t that’s just not the case. It is manifestly not the case, and and it is um uh highly problematic in my view to you know for these advertising campaigns to exist and these recruitment campaigns saying that you know you will if you have a spare room and a lot of love to give, you will experience this extra this fulfillment of being able to turn around the life of a young person. Now you may well do that. You you and and um often enough lives do get turned around. Um but you don’t you don’t erase what’s happening, what’s happened in the past, sorry. There’s there’s there is always an enduring sensitivity. So I think we just need to be really uh mindful of what is possible um lest we become overwhelmed, uh despondent. And I think that that is the case right through um the the social care sector. And you you hinted a little bit at at primary tasks, and we did spend a lot of time talking about primary tasks last time, but I think it it’s really important to start somewhere and and starting with having an understanding of what you’re actually here for, what is your role, what is the role of the organization, what is my role in this organisation, where do I sit? I think is a a really good place to start. But it do it does make me think when you look back, and I have done the same, and you think, oh, I wish I knew back then what I know now, and and of course it’s not possible to know, and then it is part of the reason I set up this podcast was to kind of speak to people with tremendous experience and have uh a reservoir of knowledge. I’m gonna I I might pinch that, uh, a reservoir of knowledge that people who are embarking or are early in their career journey can dip into and and um for their learning and understanding of the work. But I’m wondering if there is there are particular there’s particular advice that you would give um relatively inexperienced workers in the social care sector about how to approach the work.

Tom: 21:47

Yeah. Just before I do that, I want to respond to the the the because I it occurred to me even as I was saying it that oh, that’s what you’re doing. You’re the the reservoir of knowledge thing. You’re capturing it on video and on audio. And making it accessible. So, you know, and um in terms of the last podcast, all kinds of people have fed back to me that they listen to that. Not necessarily people in our line of work, even, but I think you in creating conversations about the work with people who you know have uh have some experience to share, I think is uh incredibly valuable. In terms of I don’t know, and I was interested in your point about foster carers as well, and saying, well, you know, do you have a spare bedroom and do you have some love to give? Maybe you could help a child. And it’s not a bad beginning. You know, it’s not a bad beginning. I think where that goes wrong a little bit is there is a little lack of uh understanding of the primary task and the challenges that these children are likely to bring. Because there’s a there’s a sort of fostering crisis in the UK, in that the pool of foster carers is getting smaller over time, and there’s there’s many reasons for that. And uh the government at the moment is putting a lot of resource into advertising campaigns for foster carers. I’m not sure whether that’s going to lead to uh a sustained increase in the number of foster carers because I think there is a problem about how foster care is described and what it is, what what what is it that we are asking these people to do? Because yes, um we’re asking them to provide a home and we’re asking them to provide love, but we’re also there’s there also needs to be an understanding. Well, first of all, needs to be an understanding of what these children might bring through the door with them, and an understanding of well, what do they actually need? Because you know, and if I link that, if I link into uh what does staff starting in the work, what might staff starting in this work need to know, and what might foster care need to know. The the thing that I would say is the thing that you’re striving for is understanding, so that the the it the um not just children, human beings, um rarely have instances of being fully understood by another human being, yeah. It’s it when it happens, it’s usually fleeting. There are people in your life that you’ll think, oh well, that person gets me. And so there’s some understanding there, but those moments of deep understanding and connection are rare, and I think that that uh in in therapy, in relation-based relationship-based therapies, one of the things you’re aiming for is that not just that the therapist understands the client, but that the client has an experience of being understood. So that’s that that that two-way thing, and it’s a connection. So I think for and I I think I talked in the last podcast about the idea of I do come across people who think the job is to make children behave. And I think that’s um you know, and in and in circumstances where a child is in a foster placement or a residential placement and they do well and their behavior improves, that’s a good thing. That’s not that’s not that’s not bad, but uh I don’t think that’s what the work is. I think the work is about um allowing children to have an experience of being understood by an adult and that a relationship grows. Because obviously, well, I say obviously, it’s it um uh it it follows that if you have a repeated experience of being with somebody who you feel understands you, you will develop a relationship with them. A relationship will blossom from that. That is um helpful. So, so in terms of if you’re an RCW, residential care worker, and you started in the work last week, a good place to start is well, what would give me um a better understanding of one of these children? It’s easier to start with one, you’re not gonna if you’re working with you know a number of children, it it’s easier to pick one, and maybe you’ll be directed to one by the management, but it’s easier to just pick one and say, Okay, I’m going to go on a little mission to develop a greater understanding of that child there. And that can be done. Um certainly in my early career, there wasn’t a lot of emphasis on it. I think I’ve worked in environments where an understanding of the child’s history was significant enough that there were dedicated professionals in the organization that went out and found it. And because one of I don’t know how it is in Australia, but one of the issues, anybody who’s worked in residential for a short while in the UK will tell you is that the the paperwork is never accurate. And that that’s not the local authorities’ fault, it’s just that you know, gathering information on a lifetime of experience is not an easy thing to condense into a short biography in a social work report. So um, so one of the things that I would invite that new RCW to do is to turn themselves into a detective and try and find out that child’s story. And yeah, you know, a good place to start would be the the paperwork that the child arrives with, but I wouldn’t uh I wouldn’t restrict it to that. I would get curious about who are the people that this child has uh been around, whether whether they’ve been carers or teachers or uh social workers or you know, who can I who can I speak to who knows this child and try and gather a deeper understanding of this child and their history? Because that will play out in the relationship with the child, the the your deeper understanding. I’ll give you an example. A thing that happened. So um some years ago, I was um managing teams of children’s souls, and we had a uh an office that the teams came to fortnightly for team meetings and to do some reflection. And one of the managers asked me um to come into the meeting because the team were in open rebellion. So I went into the meeting and was confronted by some really angry um residential care workers. Um, and and they directed that anger at me as I came in through there was there was a real kind of um I was bombarded with indignation. And the reason they were angry is one of the children they were working with was pretty much on a daily basis being very violent and hurting people. And once we got through the the anger and the frustration and and the conversation shifted to me, me being curious and saying, Well, you know, tell me what’s happening, tell me, tell me the story. And they were describing uh a boy who was about he was about 12, something like that at the time. And what they were describing was actually, you know, in the morning he was lovely, he went to school. Uh, the feedback from school was the teachers said he was delightful, very quiet. Uh, he’d get home in the evening, he was he was fine until around dinner time, so five 5:30 in the evening, and then he became more agitated, aroused, and that played out. He would be quite manic and giggling and grinning. And I remember someone saying he looks like the devil. They said when he he’s got this devilish look on his face, and he’d start to push things off the dinner table and run around the house, and this escalated through the evening until you know nine, ten o’clock at night, windows are being broken and people are being hurt, and it would go on till the early hours of the morning. And just by asking questions, we gradually got a picture of a child who’s in the day’s baseline was relatively steady and low, and then there was this sort of gradual escalation in the evening till around eight, nine in the evening. And then usually the what what they were describing was um he wanted to come out of it, but he didn’t know how. So he thought he wanted he wanted to kind of get back to normal, but he didn’t know how, and it took a few hours to get him back back to normal. And there was he had a dedicated life story worker, and there was a life story worker in the room, and the life story worker noticed that the peak of the acting out was 8, 8:30 at night when in that home, it was all boys. In that home, the boys were having baths and showers. Coming in from evening activities, they’d been doing sport or something like that, and they were having baths and showers, then they’d have supper and you know, a window to bedtime. And she she kind of jumped on this and homed in on it a little bit and said, Oh, that’s significant. And no one in the room really understood why it was significant. Okay, why is that significant? And she said, Well, when he was when he was five, he lived with a foster carer, and whenever he wet the bed, the foster carer ran a cold bath and held him underwater. And there was a there was there was a I get emotional when I tell this story, but there was a hush, and somebody started to cry. And then the meeting ended because um the it had taken that long to get to that conversation that the school runs people had to go off and do school runs, so the meeting came to an end. And normally when when we were dealing with something like that, we’d start planning. We’d say, okay, so what could we do differently? How could we plan? But there was no time for it. And and I didn’t hear any more about this. And I went to the meet, the next meeting two weeks later. I thought, right, I’m gonna go in and see what’s going on. And I went to the meeting and everything was fine. No one’s no one was discussing this boy, they were discussing other things, they were discussing the rotor and the paperwork and who’s not filling in the paperwork properly and the things that get talked about in those meetings. And um I was really curious. I said, Well, what’s going on with with this boy? And they said, Oh, it’s fine. It’s fine. And and then and I said, Well, what’s going on around bath times and stuff? And they described, well, oh, they said, Oh, he’s having baths. And they described, like, they’ve done some things. They they they um they decided that they were going to put a member of staff outside the bathroom on a chair so there was someone close, and they bought in some bath toys and bubble bath, and they made bath time softer, nurturing, you know, but I don’t think it’s what they did that made the difference. Yeah, I mean it made some difference, but but I think the big shift was they understood. Their understanding, yeah, they understood, and that wasn’t in his the paperwork that came, because he’d had a pretty you know awful uh set of experiences throughout childhood. That detail wasn’t there, and so we only knew that detail because the social worker, uh the life story worker who was a social worker, had gone out and done the digging and done the uncovered these stories, and so that team didn’t need to they didn’t need a deep understanding of any therapeutic model, they didn’t need to understand neurology or have studied you know the effects of trauma on the development of the brain, they just needed to hear that story, and once they heard that story, it made sense. It’s powerful, yeah, and and then and then everything just everything just fell into place, and so that was a real um uh powerful lesson in if you know the stories of the children, it will affect how you are with them, how you relate to them, it how how you respond to um agitation as bath and shower time approaches, you know, in his case. But the but there’s there’s probably a version of that for every child, and uh and understanding the story really thoroughly informs in a way that allows understanding to take place. Because without that understanding, certainly the the anger that I walked into, they they would they thought he was just gratuitously hurting people, you know, and as much as they were a really empathetic team, you you know, you um if you’re day after day after day dealing with a child who’s trying to hurt you, it does, you know, that that resentment can, you know, feelings of resentment can get into you, you know. So so I think that one, um do your best to understand the children you’re working with.

Colby: 35:26

Yeah. And while just if I can jump in there, uh while you were telling that story, I was thinking he’s you know, he’s been hurt. That’s when he’s been hurt. And and um I didn’t go to what had happened maybe in a foster placement, but I was thinking about um, you know, maybe he in his history, his there had been an adult that returned to the home at around you know after work hour, uh after normal work hours, and that something um uh adverse had was happening to him at that time. Yeah. And I think that’s that what you’re talking about is um it go it’s it’s about working beyond the need and the behaviour to understanding that the child that children are not just needs and behaviors, they have a mind. And I talk about this in in my podcast interview with Peter Blake, um, which I which is already released, but how I think he was saying that people don’t always see that children have a mind, a thinking mind, or an experiencing mind, and that um and that these experiences they go somewhere, and we and it’s important to be curious about well, where do they go? How are they stored and how do they present uh later on? And he Peter and I were talking about, you know, this goes right back to the very early days of a child’s life. Um if we agree, if we understand that they have a mind, that they’re not just needs and behaviours, then we have to have this an understanding that well, where where does all the these experiences and their their processing of these experiences go? How is it held? And how does it then manifest in the way they approach life and relationships thereafter?

Tom: 37:31

I think um because I I I I feel like when I came into this work, I was uh blundering around in the dark. And some um one of the other things in turn in terms of you useful things is that when I came into this work, people talked about structure and routines and boundaries all the time. Anyone you met in residential and consistency, words like consistency, but consistency, structure, routines, boundaries, and that that’s less fashionable to talk about now. It’s much more fashionable to talk about trauma-informed practice, but actually, I think there’s a huge value in structure and boundaries and routines and rituals, and like you know, people didn’t really talk about rituals, but you know, you know, I I remember um working in a children’s home that had a very distinct ritual around Sunday mornings, and it was lovely, and I enjoyed it. You know, I I enjoyed joining in. Okay, we’ve we’ve got this ritual, they’ve got the pattern of the week, but Sundays are a bit different. This is the ritual on a Sunday, and those the rhythm of the day today is extraordinarily helpful, and I again I think that it can be underestimated. People reach for they want to talk about trauma-informed work or aces or um you know, therapeutic uh jargon work to embellish their work, to say, okay, my work’s sophisticated. Whereas actually I’d say, well, look, really understanding the children helps, um, a clear structure with routines and boundaries and consistency. Um, though one of the things that I often said to people working with children who are new to the home is actually to some extent, the um the care plan and the the running of the home should be quite boring because the children you because it should be so predictable, because the children are bringing such a high state of anxiety that that’s what they need. Absolutely. They’re they’re accustomed to um mealtime shifting, bedtime shifting, uh who’s looking after me shifting. Am I going to bed at this time? Am I going to bed at that time? What time am I going to school? Am I going to school? So they’re used to that uh lack of consistency. So that one of the biggest gifts we can give is okay, here’s some consistency and predictability. Now you know what will happen. You know, and that that that that daily ritual and routine is enormously helpful. And but people don’t talk about that anymore. They’ll they’ll they’ll talk about you know the need to be empathetic and curious, and those things are useful, but uh, but I think the basics tend to get um overlooked a little bit. And and if you’re working in a really sophisticated service, that’s fine because it’s just part of the culture and the ritual routines will look after themselves. If you’re establishing, you know, you if you want to establish a children’s home that that and you want it to be beyond the ordinary, there needs to be a lot of focus on, okay, where are our rituals and routines and uh how do we deliver those consistently? And how do we get to understand our children better? Before you start layering on, okay, well, let’s let’s bring in a specialist consultant to do um you know to explore the unconscious processes that might be going on between the staff and the children. That stuff’s important, but actually, without the um without setting the stage by saying, well, actually, you know, we’ve got consistency, we’ve got routines, we’ve got boundaries, the roles are clearly understood between, you know, we we know what the manager does, what the deputy manager does, what the senior workers or team leaders do, what the RCWs do. We’re really clear about that stuff, and we’ve got this routine that we that in a way we try to grind out. It will never go like that because the children will bring in, um they will disrupt that routine, and and and that’s where the work lies, actually. Then then disrupting the routine is an opportunity for some work to take place, but uh, but I think um it’s interesting. You know, I’ve been involved in the establishment of some new services in the last year, and and it’s interesting where I found my mind going. And yes, you know, we did introduce um reflective spaces and consultancy, but actually there was quite a bit of focus on what are the rituals, what are the routines, what what you know, what what are we putting in the environment, how are we using the environment um to create something that is warm and nurturing and homely.

Colby: 42:33

And some would say that’s what pace is. I mean, pace is about the a therapeutic establishing a therapeutic environment or milieu. Um I’m with you. I I I just think that you have to start with consistency of routines, of rituals, um, of care. And everything that you set out to do, you should be able to set out to do it consistently. And if you can’t do it consistently, or there can’t be consistency managed between staff members, then you need to pair it back a bit or find something that they can do. I think I think consistency comes second to connection. It certainly in the work that I do, what I’ve taught in terms of importance. So connection absolutely the over the length and breadth of the service that we’re providing is is the most important thing. But I think consistency runs a close second, and part of that is while I was listening to you, I was thinking about you know, we’re the children come from chaos or or or bad things have happened unpredictable, unpredictably. And part of and and talking about that um the the case example that you gave a little bit earlier, it was important to develop a ritual and routine, I think, for that young person to have um to know what. What was going on, and to have an alternative experience of that. But I don’t think the care that what we’re doing in this aspect of the work is that sophisticated as you say. It’s it’s relatively boring. And if people don’t know it uh in this way, I I would have them, and when I talk, I have them think about well, how do we raise little babies? Yeah, because that’s I think that that’s often enough where things started to go wrong for the for the children that we come across, that they didn’t have those experiences of predictability, of uh routines around nurturance and care that a child who grows up in a in a comparatively stable, loving, responsive home had. And so, you know, there’s a there’s a I think there’s a lot of similarity between how we set out to manage our home for for the children we’re talking about, whether that be a children’s home or a um or a foster home, a kinship home. A lot of a lot of what we’re seeing comes from deficiencies and how they were cared for in the past. And if you think about, well, how do we how do we set a new pattern, how do we reset? Well, that we go back and we redo some of that in a more age-appropriate way, perhaps in some respects, but we we reinstitute or we institute the kind of consistency that you see when you’re raising infants. While you’re pausing there, the other thing I was I I wanted to pick up on something else you just said, which was um get to know the children. And I think that there’s my mind goes to a number in a number of directions, I guess, on that. But one so there’s two. Actually, it’s one. People will sometimes say, well, we don’t get enough information in this sector. A common a common um complaint is that is from um people who are in a care role with the children and young people is that they haven’t got all the information. It hasn’t been shared with them. So it’s very difficult for them to know you know the the details of the history. Now, you know, while you’re telling that story, my head would, because I’ve worked in the sector for 30 years, my head immediately goes to something bad has happened at that time. And I didn’t necessarily need to know that it was in that foster care placement. My mind went to an adult comes home and something bad happens at that time. Um I didn’t need to know the the intricacies of that um or the finer points of that history to know that we’ve got to change the child’s experience of this time. And and and as you say, we’ve got to acknowledge that that um this is lightly because um he has had some adverse experiences around this time. So as you say, it just changes the way in which people approach the the relationship.

Tom: 47:24

I think it’s more than that. I think it it because it it changes the way people feel. So it’s not just it so, yes, of course, knowing that information might change the care plan, you know, might change the way you approach those tasks. But I think the great of it is it changes the way you feel as a worker. So so the the resentment and anger that was being experienced based on the child’s behavior evaporated as soon as people understood, oh, that’s what’s going on. And like I say, one person cried, but the the thing there was a real shift in the emotion in the room, yeah. And and so, you know, the I can understand how someone being hurt by a child would develop feelings of resentment, and that evaporated once the staff understood why why that was happening, and that then changed the way they so it wasn’t, I don’t think it was about I don’t think what happened after that meeting is they got together at another time and had and had a real powwow about how they were going to handle bath times. I think just the way they their emotional response to his um agitation was enough. I think it I think that was enough, and yeah, that you know, and then maybe over the two weeks they developed a uh they they shifted the ritual around bath time to make it more tolerable then. But I think the big thing that happened was the a shift in how they felt. Um absolutely, you know, and and that you that’s the sort of thing, you know, you’ve that’s the sort of thing that makes reflective spaces necessary, so that stuff can be processed and you can get in touch with okay, I feel like this right now. Uh, I feel you know, resentful and annoyed with this 12-year-old. That you can find your way to um what what happened to the infant that led to this 12-year-old that’s smashing the house to pieces. Going back to the the the thing you said about um going back to very early childhood, and and one of I had a conversation in the last week with someone about when children are admitted to children’s homes. And I kind of um it’s going out of fashion now, but there was a there was a fashion of um if you were coming at it from a children’s rights perspective, well, when a child joins a children’s home, they should um spend time with each of the staff, we’ll see who they get along with, and they can choose their own key worker. Yeah, and that was that was pretty widespread, I don’t know, 15 years ago or something like that. And I always felt that missed a big opportunity, and and the big opportunity is that the act of admission is a massive intervention. So, so that’s like the the biggest thing a children’s home can do for a child is admit them because you’re taking them from one situation and you’re bringing them into another well, you take you take them from one world and you’re bringing them into another world, and when um and I use this metaphor, when a woman is pregnant with a child, everybody talks to her about what’s gonna happen when the baby gets it. You know, someone might help create a nursery and they might have a baby shower, and um they will there’ll be lots of conversation about motherhood, what motherhood’s gonna be like, and uh you know, ideas like you know, you are you’re gonna have the baby in your bedroom, are you gonna when you’re gonna move in the nursery? All these kind of conversations go on and set up the minds. What that does is it prepares everybody for the idea of there’s going to be a child and there’s going to be a mother. And I think a version of that can happen even for a teenager when a teenager moves into a children’s home. That with the the the home can do that preparatory work, the conversations about who’s going to be the key worker, how we’re going to welcome the child into the home, how we’re going to bridge them in. What um because I I think what works really well is when there is an individual who bridges the child into the home and becomes their gateway to the relationships in the home. And uh a process called cleaning, where you literally go out and claim the child. You’re you’re coming with me, I’m going to look after you. And I think it works particularly well if that person is the key worker. So the key worker goes out into the world, meets the child, brings them into this new world, and then becomes their um kind of parent. It’s not quite a parent, but it’s it’s not far off, you know. They become their kind of parent and the link to the other relationships. Because where you don’t do that, and I I I I I did some work with the team where they didn’t agree with that, and they thought, no, no, no, no, we we let the child come in and and choose. And I said, Well, what do you think on the first night in the home when the door closes, what do you think the child’s thinking about? And they’d say, Oh, well, they’re scared and they’re anxious. And I said, You know, I think they’re probably trying to remember everybody’s names because they’ve been introduced to half a dozen people or a dozen people, and they’re trying to work out who of this lot is actually gonna keep me alive, and and potentially who’s who’s the threatening one. And so that you know, in the world of because I think what we’re doing in this conversation is we’re making building blocks and we’re saying, okay, well, structure and boundary and routines in the children. Well, primary task, what are we here for? Are we clear about it? Have we got a structure? How do we set the scene? What are the structure and routines? And you all that stuff gets worked out before you’ve done it recently. All that stuff gets worked out before you ever admit a child. There’s lots of conversations. There should be lots of conversations about what our structure, boundaries, and routines are, and then moving up a level that okay, how do children come into the home? Well, it should be a process of being claimed, it they should feel like somebody uh went into their world and claimed them and brought them into this new world where you know the promise is you’re gonna be surrounded by a bunch of thoughtful adults who are going to nurture and care for you.

Colby: 54:28

Yeah, it wouldn’t it just sorry, just quickly, it just puts me in mind of one of the key themes that comes out of research with with alumni of children’s residential care is that feeling of belonging somewhere and to someone. And um uh Jenna, who’s Jenna B, whose last name I I’m um struggling with at the moment, but um yeah, Jenna, she talked about um the the research that she did with her in her PhD thesis, highlighted exactly what you’re talking about, is that the the carelivers who’d been through residential care really appreciated the fact that they belonged somewhere, the the experience of belonging somewhere and to someone.

Tom: 55:16

Well, all all of these things contribute to belonging because I think belonging is one of the things that you would want to achieve. So uh so so the and and they’re they’re all things that accelerate relationship. Because I mean, I quite often, you know, in uh a residential placement might not last that long. Um I might not long, you know, two years is not long in a lifetime, and so these are things that accelerate the the development of relationships. So um, if a team, if you’re starting from scratch and you really thought about what you were there for in your primary task, and you spent some time thinking about structures and routines, and you developed a philosophy about, well, we really want to understand our children, and we’re gonna have key workers, and the key workers are going to have particular relationships with the children that would be more parental than the other relationships in the home. And the key workers are gonna go out into the world and claim these children and bring them in, and then we’re gonna use our structure and routines and our rituals and our understanding of the child. All of these things contribute to a sense of belonging, you know. Eventually, we’ll um, you know, six months on, maybe a bit longer, but the child has a sense of okay, I know where I am here, I know the structure and routines and rituals, I know the people, I know that they know me, I know that they can tolerate the things that I do and say, and all of that stuff, it’s not it’s not um it’s not a straight line formula, but the but all of that stuff contributes to a greater sense of belonging. And um and then and then it also creates the space where you can do some work that that that you that could be broadly described as therapeutic. Because I think that stuff’s just good practice. I don’t I I wouldn’t say, oh, that’s you know, that that I think it’s good practice, but it it creates the space and the relationships and the safety to do some therapeutic work and to um you consciously use relationships to give rise to transformation, which is that that my definition of therapeutic is it’s the conscious use of relationships to deliver transformation.

Colby: 57:50

I I hear I I hear what you’re saying, and I hear what you mean and I acknowledge that it is good practice, you know, to set up these these very fundamental building blocks. But I do wonder whether identifying with them as good practice diminishes their importance a little bit. And uh the my reason for saying that is that there can be an inordinate focus on the therapeutic intervention as the change agent. But the therapeutic intervention, and Patrick Tomlinson and I talk about this, and we talked about it as recently as um only a few days ago. You can’t a therapeutic intervention won’t is unlikely to be successful if it’s done, if the we haven’t taken care of the environment first, that we haven’t created an environment around the young people for in which this therapeutic um intervention can um make a difference. So the reality is a th a therapeutic intervention may have no impact at all if the environment is not set up appropriately to um facilitate that. But the environment will always be therapeutic if if done according or if if established according to the principles that we’ve been talking about. So yeah, it’s good practice. I but I wonder about whether the just good practice diminishes the importance of it. I think it’s vital.

Tom: 59:32

I think you might be right. I’ve struggled um over, I don’t know, the last decade with the therapeutic as applied to uh children’s homes. Not not because I think it’s been misused a lot, and I think it turned into a marketing term. And um the you know, I have in my own mind a notion of what the threshold is for a therapeutic service. And I was repeatedly being introduced to services that were described as therapeutic, and I just didn’t think they were. It didn’t mean they were terrible, I don’t think they were bad. I just I just don’t think I think as I said earlier, there’s levels to this game. Yeah, and some a colleague of mine challenged me recently about this and said, well, you know, um if we’re creating therapeutic services, we should call them therapeutic services. And and I think she had a point because I think it is my own hack up, because I got I got quite uh resistant to using the word therapeutic because not because you know, for someone who’s kind of spent his career at that part of children’s residential care, um, I think it was because I felt it was being misused. And so I kind of stepped away from it a bit. But you you’re right to notice actually, what I’m describing is how do you set the stage such that you know relationship-based transformation can take place, and that it that that claiming process, I would say there’s so much about a placement can be set up in the way the admission takes place. You can you can you you can um cover a lot of ground in the admission process, and I think people underestimate what it means for the child to move from one world on Tuesday to another world on Wednesday. And and you you know, I I I’m uh loosely in touch with some people who were kids, they’re not kids now. They were children when I worked with them, they’re in the 40s now. Um, but they they can each tell me in absolute clarity about the day they moved into the uh it was a it was a service that I was working in. But they they can tell me with clarity about, you know, 30 odd years later, 35 years later, they can tell me with absolute clarity about what happened that day, because it’s a very significant intervention. And and and like I say, I think I think the there is a lot a lot of work that can be done in that uh admission process that sets the tone for uh a greater chance of a successful uh experience in in a children’s home or in a therapeutic service.

Colby: 1:02:31

Um I think you if I can jump in there, I just think that um it it is it is good practice to be reflective about our use of the term therapeutic and even our application of principles of therapeutic practice. Um I’m mindful Simon Benjamin was on the podcast uh some in the first within the first 10. I can’t remember, I think it might have been podcast number eight. Simon’s a social care consultant here in Australia, but he um he’s worked for a number of organisations. He was the CEO of the Lighthouse Foundation, um, and he worked at the Mulberry Bush School as well. And Simon talks about therapeutic from understanding where that that term comes from, and uh he talks about it coming from the medical profession or or medical science, and that therapy the the idea of what is therapeutic is not just um you can’t you have a set of principles or practices that you you just apply. Yeah. In in in medicine, therapeutic is the dose at which what you apply makes a difference. So where that then the crossover with that is that is that in our work there is probably a lot, if not most, services are applying therapeutic principles, therapeutic ideas, and therapeutic techniques. But are they getting the dose right? That’s that’s the lesson of what what Simon’s saying is that from medicine is that it’s only therapeutic in the right dose. And children, different children require different doses. Yeah, for that, for that therapeutic um effect. So that all that by way of it is a bit, um it’s not as simple as just setting, you know, implementing a set of principles, a send of uh a set of ideas and a set of practices. They have to be in the right dose. And that’s that’s part of the nuance of this work, it’s part of the complexity of it and the complexity of our children. I think it’s aided by by what you’re you were saying earlier about getting to know individual children.

Tom: 1:05:05

Well, I think I think and knowing what you’re there for, and knowing what you’re there for so so you you know that that you know you you’re getting to know the children in service of developing a greater understanding that is in service of those children experiencing connection and belonging, yeah. You know, I think one of the other things that that um I I as a younger man, I was very intense and very, you know, kind of looked at the work as kind of wanted to be good at the work. Um, but you have to remind yourself sometimes and your custodians of childhoods, you know. So so in as much as there’s work that needs to be done, and there is work that needs to be done, and there’s lots of um you know, the depending on the nature of the survey. There’s there can quite often be external pressures on what work are you doing, you know, the regular meetings to ask what work are you doing and what progress is being made, and can you show me your outcomes? But I think sometimes you need to be reminded, and your custodians of childhood. So you part of your job is to give these children a childhood that that they will remember fondly, you know. And so, you know, um such an important role finding opportunities to have fun and enjoyment along the way are quite important, you know. And um, and I think so, you know, for some people in the work that comes quite natural to them, they’ll they’ll just go and have fun with the kids, and for others, you need a reminder, actually, you know, this child is um not a project. Then yeah, it’s it’s all well and good that you’re being an amateur psychologist trying to help this child recover from their trauma, but sometimes they need a day off to just go and have some fun.

Colby: 1:06:56

Yeah, more than one day, I would say. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. You know, you said I’m coming back to something that you said earlier, which is um fundamentally I would I would refer to it in the these terms, that the the experience of being heard and understood and acknowledged in your experience, and of being understood not just in the words, but in the actions and in the outward presentation and expressed emotion of an adult, of another person, I think is is probably our most powerful intervention. Um, I don’t know of a more powerful one. I often say there are things that you can’t change for young people. Like, you know, it’s the law that they have to go to school as much as the hate it, as much as we are unhappy with how the school are managing them. Um, but but you can still empathize deeply with you can still acknowledge with deep understanding the child’s experience with the fact that they have to go to school and they don’t like it. Yeah. Like something sometimes the only thing we can do is acknowledge the child’s experience with deep understanding. And I I think that that’s our most powerful intervention. And why I think it’s the most powerful intervention, which you’ve hinted at, well you’ve mentioned uh as we’ve been going along, it has to do with the child’s experience. That the child’s experience of being heard and acknowledged, validated in their experience is that my experience is real. I I am a person of worth. I am this person cares about me, this person understands me, I can trust this person, I can trust this space around me a little bit more and more over time. What a relief. What a relief that I’m now somewhere with someone or some people who get me.

Tom: 1:09:22

On the journey, because I was thinking back to okay, building up in layers from what are we here for, what’s our structure and routines, how do we bring children into this, what what’s the nature of the relationships we’re aiming to have? Because it the the the thing I think understanding is very important, but I also think that the nature of the relationships it might not be quite the same in a therapeutic community at times, but it but I’ll I’ll I’ll restrict myself to children’s homes. But in in children’s homes, the nature of the relationship is a parental relationship, and and I and again, I think there are um, particularly if you’re working with teenagers, teenagers will invite you not to be their parent. They will, they will, you know, um friends to be some kind of friend or you know, something else. And I think again, in the world of well, what what actually what actually works is to assume the position of a parent. And and you know, there’s a number of reasons for that. I think one of one of the reasons I would put forward is the idea of, well, if children are in care, it’s because in some way, shape, or form they’ve experienced a failure of parenting. And therefore, if the thing that has led you to being where you are is a failure of parenting, the solution should be some kind of parenting. Now it’s not you know, to your point about foster care and have you got a spare bedroom and love to give. The inference there is that all these kids need is a regular is is a is a parent figure. But actually, over time you find that well, no, they need a bit more than that. That that it and I and the the they need something beyond ordinary parenting. So um, you know, and sometimes it’s called therapeutic parenting, or but but ordinary parenting won’t work for these kids because ordinary parenting doesn’t factor in um the effects of trauma and the effects of neglect on development. So um, if not ordinary parenting, then something like extraordinary parenting. So so something that is parental but that goes beyond regular parenting, where there’s um, you know, the thing that would now be called trauma-informed, but an understanding of actually these um experiences in early childhood affect the development of the child’s brain to the extent there are things that they can and can’t do, and that might change at different times. So we go back to the example I gave earlier of the 12-year-old, he could function like a regular 12-year-old most of the time, but then when he was stressed by the routines in the home, um he could not cope with that, and that led to aggressive acting out and people getting hurt. And so understanding that’s partially about the way his brain’s developed, that’s partially about his ability to um or inability to problem solve and articulate himself, and um that the I don’t want to get too neurological, but the that there are different brain states that you know that the uh there are different brain states that are exaggerated by adverse early childhood experiences. And so that’s the additional knowledge you would need to be an extraordinary parent, but you’re still a parent, and so that the parent bit should still crop up in there, and then that starts getting complicated because uh parents hold authority, you know, and parents uh you know, going back to the beginning where we said, okay, you’re gonna need structure, routine, and boundary. Well, the boundary bit can be a bit complicated with our children because uh they push against boundaries and test boundaries, and the testing about whether you’re a safe adult or not, some of the time.

Colby: 1:13:59

And you look after me.

Tom: 1:14:01

Yeah, yeah. And so, and and how will you respond? You know, how if I do this, you know, um you can almost see sometimes I I can remember you know when I work directly with children, you you you’d almost see them like the test thresholds. Well, what are you gonna do if I stand here? What you’re gonna do, what if I pick this up and drop it? What are you gonna do? And then then looking, okay, what are you gonna do now? What you’re gonna do now, what you’re gonna do now. But the the I think the complicated bit for residential workers is you hold authority, but as a residential worker, it’s hard to work out how much authority do you hold and how can you express that authority safely in the interests of the child? Yeah, and that that’s you know, about if if if um if one member of staff says no to something, will the member of the other members of staff hold that same line? Will the management hold that line? Will other stakeholders from outside the system step in and say that’s not a reasonable line to hold? You know, whether it’s things like uh in the modern world, things like mobile phones, really good example. So um what are the thresholds around mobile phones? What age can you have a mobile phone? If you’ve got a mobile phone, should you have it all the time? Should you be able to take your mobile phone to bed with you? Should you, you know, do there’s you know, and to be fair, that’s something that you know regular parents battle with. But in in a children’s home, it gets really complicated because you go, okay, that’s a boundary, it’s got a threshold, and people may differ on what they think that threshold is, and that can be sorted out with a meeting and a discussion, and you can agree a threshold, but then people will vary on their ability to hold that threshold, and that’s where it starts to get really complicated, and um I think that’s uh people are not fond about talking about that stuff. It’s much easier to talk about curiosity and empathy and playfulness and uh things like that. It’s much harder to talk about sometimes we need to say no to the children because that’s what good parents do, and and that’s where it starts getting complicated, and that’s been particularly complicated in the UK um over the last since well, certainly since 2014. Um, so in 2014 there was a a case, there was a court case in I’m sitting in Cheshire, it was in Cheshire, Cheshire West, and it was about um it was actually about about an adult, it wasn’t about a child, but it was an adult in a caring situation. And were the question that the court was addressing was are these adults, carers, depriving uh this person of their liberty by saying you can’t go out whenever you want to, and by supervising them. And I think there was a two to one supervision ratio or something like that. But the this person was heavily supervised and there were restrictions on where they could come and go. And the court found that that was a breach of um Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. And the fallout of that, and that gradually, it wasn’t an overnight thing, but that’s gradually found its way into children’s services, and there’s been various cases over the last, you know, since 2014, like 10 years. And so increasingly, what you’ll see, particularly in referral paperwork, is referrals of children who and it will say they have a doll. And a doll is a deprivation of liberty order issued by a court, and that’s where the court decides what the boundary is. And so the court will decide. You you it can be about things like it can be about things like mobile phones, it can be things about supervision, it can be about um whether they, you know, what to do if this uh child attempts to abscond. And uh that’s a well-intentioned um the court made a well-intentioned decision, and whenever deprivation of liberty orders are produced, they’re well-intentioned because their intention is to protect the rights of a of a in our case, a child in care. The problem with it is it makes it it’s caused a lot of muddles around who has authority. So if you and when local authorities are in doubt about what a threshold should be, they’ll apply for a doll. If they’re not sure, they’ll apply. And so since 2014, there’s been a gradual increase year on year in the number of dolls, and it’s kind of crept down for younger and younger children. So there are there are dolls you know uh being issued for children under 12. And so the the difficulty with that is is it creates it essentially says that a judge and a court decide the boundaries or some of the boundaries um that are issued in a children’s home. And I think that makes it really complicated for the staff. I think one of one of the other things, an unintended consequence of that um ruling, is it’s made residential child care much more expensive. Because where there is a deprivation of liberty order, it’s a court order, and the local authority has to be assured that whoever’s providing that care will adhere to the order because it’s a court order. So you can’t say, well, you know, we tried, but it didn’t work out. And so what that’s led to is higher and higher levels of supervision of children and an increase in the number of solo placements, and solo placements just by the nature tend to be more expensive. So it’s put a real strain on local authorities and it’s kind of shaping to I don’t want to overstate it, but to some extent, it’s shaping the market. Uh um that, and it’s certainly shaping um the confidence with which residential staff can take up that parental role and and and and issue a parental boundary um about whether a child, what what should happen if a child walks out of the door, for example? And you and you might have different responses. You’d you know, you could look at okay, what what do we do if this child runs away? You know, and there’s lots of different things you could do if you could go with them, for example. You know, but there’s an even an argument that, well, if you’re going with them and you’re constantly supervising that in of itself, even if you’re not preventing them from leaving or bringing them back, the fact that you are going with them is in itself a deprivation of liberty. So you you end up with, I think it’s created, um, like I say, I think it’s well intentioned and it’s there to protect children’s rights, but there are unintended consequences. The unintended consequence is the authority of the staff who are in the day-to-day parental role is undermined. Diminished. And there is confusion in the system about what you can do and what can’t you do. And a notion that’s relatively new of, well, we’ll need a court to decide that. Which, which again, you know, certainly when I was working directly with the children, uh, yeah, there were children on there were care orders and there was different different kinds of care orders. But it you certainly in um, if I thought a child was gonna run out of the building and put themselves at risk, I didn’t give too much thought to what are the legal consequences of me saying I’m not gonna let you do that.

Colby: 1:22:29

Yeah. Sounds like the subject of another podcast, Tom.

Tom: 1:22:36

Yeah, and I’m not I’m I’m not an expert on this stuff, you know. This is the the I it’s we’ll make it one. Yeah, it’s I’m I’m sure there’ll be people listening to the podcast that say, Oh, he’s not quite right about that. Uh um, but it but it’s certainly you know, and I’m making a connection between local authorities requesting it, almost seems universal that when when there’s a doll, they they they they will immediately interpret that in this child needs a two-to-one solo, which I don’t think needs to be the case. You know, I I’ve been responsible for you know, not in the non-too distant past for you know, a six-bedded service that had more than one child in it who was on a doll, and it was fine. We we we we just worked through it, but I think what it’s doing is it it over time it these things nudge practices, and practices get nudged towards um if if it if there’s a deprivation of liberty, it’s probably going to be a two-to-one solo placement that we’re looking for, and that you know that that trend, um that trend has increased. There’s and there’s certainly a place for two-to-one solo placements, but I would regard them as an intervention in order to allow something else to happen later rather than an end in themselves.

Colby: 1:23:59

Well, like I said, it it we could probably talk a lot more about using the parental role, I guess, and understanding the important aspects of the parental role that um is it’s it’s important to operationalise in children’s homes and therapeutic communities. You were using um the word enhanced, I think. I I use enriched, um and I think it’s the richness of it that you can adjust from child to child with the the dose that I was talking about a little bit earlier. Um, but before I let you go, because you need to go, because you’ve got a busy day tomorrow, early start. Um I I just wondered what you thinking about the children, what what do you think we would like for the children to say as graduates, as alumni, as as adults, say about the experience that they had in a children’s home, in a children’s residential care home?

Tom: 1:25:09

I think you’d want them to say they felt loved and cared for. You know, I think that love’s another difficult word um in residential. Um there’s a resurgence in the UK of of people using um the word love within practice. But you know, going back to that, a sense of belonging, you know, that the the that they feel or felt that they belonged, they didn’t feel that they were guests or or placements, they didn’t feel like a placement, they felt like no, this is a place where I belong and where I’m connected, and um, I think I’ve I’ve I’ve I’ve heard different in someone wrote to me a few years ago, wrote me a really long letter about um someone I worked with really early on in my career, and I I thought he he he’d had really positive experience, he had nothing bad to say about it at all. Now, whereas my reflection on it was, well, it was in the old days where actually staff ratios were really low. And um, you know, I think the I it was one of those situations where I was looking back and thinking we could have been way more sophisticated there. Yeah, he’d written to me saying, you know, he thought this was transformational and it set him up for life, and like really um got a lot from being there and the relationships, and he was, you know, and he was and and he was sharing memories. He was um, yeah, there was a there was a uh a game show on TV that we used to watch together, and it turned into a but we’d have like a little competition between us about answering the questions in the game show, and that was one of the memories I’d kind of forgotten about that, but he he talked at length about this experience of watching this game show and how fun it was, and we kept it like we had an informal scoring system, and um so it’s that you know, I’m I’m uh reminiscing on his reminiscence and smiling, and I think you know, you’d want that. You you’d want, yeah, I felt belonging, you know, and I’ve had other children talk about you reflecting on when they were difficult to look after and appreciating that the staff stuck with them through the difficulty. Um so I think it’s different for different children, but but his recollection was it made me smile because he was reminding me of things that were not that significant to me. I would, I would, I we did that thing, I don’t know, for however long. That quiz show ran for we had this little game on a Wednesday night where we’d all sit and watch this quiz show together and keep score and joke about who’d answered the most questions and so on. And it didn’t mean a lot to me at the time. I didn’t see it as particularly significant. But then, you know, 25 years later, he writes to me, and that’s his one of the bits that he presents and says, Look, this was this was really good fun, and I’ve thought about it a lot.

Colby: 1:28:25

I think there’s a message in that, uh, Tom, that um for for people who are just starting out in their in their practice in children’s homes, in being a a um a care worker for our children and young people, is that not to underestimate. Yes, years bring experience and knowledge and sophistication, but don’t underestimate the little things that you can bring to the life of a young person. Um notwithstanding that you’re you’re uh you’re an early career practitioner in this space.

Tom: 1:29:04

Yeah, I agree. I think um one of the things you know, we could have a long conversation about when placements break down. But you know, I I worked in a situation, I’m going back a long time now, where I a placement didn’t last long at all. It lasted like days, and then broke down that that home, uh, the location, and various things about the actual setup didn’t work. And the and I was I was a manager at the time, and I remember the staff being feeling like they’d failed. And the the thing that I kind of reminded them of is you you you you can’t judge that, you can’t judge that now, because what everything we do has the potential to be something that that child makes use of later, as an adult, that that that they might think back to a moment in time, like like the you know, like the quiz game, but um I’m I’m thinking about in more where it’s rockier, where it’s where it’s much more um much less fun. That there is always you you can’t judge what that child will think is relevant in five or ten years’ time when they look back, and and I think there’s a value to um our kids have a really good way of making us confused and lost, and and quite often what we’re doing is we’re struggling to find a way through, and I think that that struggle in of itself is worth something, you know. I think children have a sense of people trying even when they’re getting it wrong, yeah.

Colby: 1:30:57

Thank you, Tom. That was uh again a really thought-provoking and enjoyable conversation, and uh um I better let you wind up your day because as I mentioned a little bit earlier, I know that you’ve got a busy one tomorrow, so thanks again. And uh we might have to do round three at some stage.

Tom:

My pleasure, thank you.

Tom’s Bio:

Tom is an accomplished Consultant and leadership trainer with over 30 years in children’s residential care, specialising in innovative leadership and mental health support for young people. Through Elevate Professional Development, launched in 2025, he delivers UK-wide workshops to strengthen care leadership. With 20 years of boardroom experience, Tom has consistently driven strategic leadership and service transformation. Holding a BPS-approved Psychology degree, a Master’s in Psychoanalytic Observational Studies, and postgraduate qualifications in Management and Strategic Management, he blends academic and practical expertise. Currently, he serves as Non-Executive Chair at AMMA Childcare Ltd, Non-Executive Director at Cedars Childcare Ltd and Empathy CIC, and advises the leadership teams of a number of organisations in the third and independent
sectors.

Related Podcasts:

You may also be interested in Tom’s first episode on The Secure Start Podcast.

You can listen here:

You can watch here:

Support the podcast:

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/TheSecureStartPodcast

Disclaimer:

Information reported by guests of this podcast is assumed to be accurate as stated. Podcast owner Colby Pearce is not responsible for any error of facts presented by podcast guests. In addition, unless otherwise specified, opinions expressed by guests of this podcast may not reflect those of the podcast owner, Colby Pearce.

What if Child Safeguarding Began with Love? A Podcast Interview with Carla Keyte

What if Child Safeguarding Began with Love?

What if the most powerful safeguarding tool isn’t another form, but a steady adult who shows up with love? That’s the heart of my conversation with Carla Keyte, founder of Lighthouse and a leading voice in UK residential care, as we unpack how safe, stable, loving homes are built—and measured—through relationships, not fear. We explore how love-led practice, not fear-based compliance, creates safe, stable, loving homes in residential care.

Children heal through steady, attuned relationships with adults who notice, co-regulate, and remain present. The challenge is aligning governance and inspection with that reality so felt safety is measured and protected, not crowded out by paperwork.

Carla traces how sector language has shifted from placements and behaviour management to family time and relational practice. Yet many systems still judge homes by incident counts and prescriptive rules instead of the child’s lived experience. Felt safety shows up as play, curiosity, and connection, not just fewer reports. A truly safe home is one where children feel seen and cared for, and where adults feel psychologically safe to do the work well. That means leaders commit to cultures that contain stress, enable reflective practice, and invite learning over blame. Compliance remains essential, but it must be the foundation we stand on, not the ceiling we reach for. When ratings and enforcement become the whole story, they can create fear that drives out the very conditions children need to recover.

A key idea is reframing inspection as a safeguarding partnership. Rather than branding a home inadequate, regulators and providers could ask two questions: is this a safe, stable, loving home for this child, and if not, what support is required to get there? This approach mirrors strong child protection practice—bringing multi-agency expertise around the child and the adults, and designing a therapeutic intervention rather than only grading deficits. Carla describes the Lighthouse model as a triangle: safeguard the child; stabilise adults with supervision, training, and reflective space; and strengthen the home’s culture and compliance. When all three are aligned, outcomes improve without diluting standards.

Professional boundaries often get misread as emotional distance, but neuroscience tells a different story. Children with trauma histories need consistent, regulated adults who can co-regulate and hold limits with warmth. Scotland’s Promise explicitly names love as part of care, correcting a drift that left staff afraid to comfort a crying child at 3am. Policies designed to protect children must not block the human connection that does protect them—daily observation, knowing the child, noticing mood shifts, and showing up with steadiness. Paperwork informs a network; relationships change a life. Fear-based systems can’t produce safety; only love can reduce fear and rebuild trust.

A love-led framework also builds social capital. Investing in high-quality residential care pays forward to future partners, children, and communities. The work is nuanced and resource-intensive, but the cost of children growing up feeling unloved is far higher. Extending relational support beyond 18 reflects how human development actually unfolds; care does not end at a birthday. Strong leadership is vital here. Leaders set the tone for psychological safety, create environments where staff can bring both heart and skill, and ensure compliance serves the mission, not the other way around. With clarity of purpose and relational metrics, the sector can protect love in practice—and the evidence shows that’s what transforms lives.

You can listen to the podcast here:

You can watch the podcast here:

About Carla:

Carla is the Founder and Director of Lighthouse, bringing extensive expertise in quality, compliance, and safeguarding across the residential childcare sector in the UK. With a background spanning Registered Manager, Head of Care, and Head of Quality & Compliance for an organisation operating over 30 homes rated Good and Outstanding, Carla has deep, practical insight into operational leadership, regulatory compliance, and governance. Carla has a proven track record of resolving complex compliance issues and supporting organisations through challenging regulatory actions. Her specialism lies in developing and embedding Quality and Governance frameworks that drive sustainable improvement and ensure the highest standards of care. Passionate about love-led practice and the power of meaningful relationships, Carla champions approaches that create safe, nurturing, and stable environments where children and young people can truly thrive. Carla founded Lighthouse to provide expert guidance and tailored support to providers navigating an increasingly complex regulatory landscape. The name Lighthouse reflects Carla’s vision: to act as a guiding beacon for organisations, illuminating the path through complexity toward excellence in care, safeguarding, and relational practice.

Related Podcasts:

If you really like This podcast interview, you may also like:

Patricia Sheridan

Listen here:

Watch here:

Links:

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/TheSecureStartPodcast

Podcast Blog Site: https://thesecurestartpodcast.com/

Secure Start Site: https://securestart.com.au/

Transcript:

Colby: 0:00

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Carla: 0:05

I write a lot about my belief that love saves lives. Every child deserves a safe, stable, loving home and that our residential services need support to be able to do that. Children heal through relationships and yet the compliance is the kind of ground on which we stand upon, but not necessarily in the way in which healing can be measured. When we talk to engage with care, experienced young people, what they tell us is important to them are those relationships, are those adults that showed up consistently, calmly, attuned again and again, those adults that took the time to notice and spend time and build strong relationships. That’s really where safety is built and felt. As much as children need safe, stable, loving environments in order to thrive, actually so to adults. And if we think about homes and organisations as kind of organic structures, we need to be considering how not only do we provide safe, stable, loving homes, but how do we create safe, stable, loving organisations? How do we create an inspection framework because it is necessary and helpful that breeds love instead of fear? And we know that in order to create safe environments for children, adults need to feel psychologically safe and contained, and therefore the organisation needs to be the container. What we say is compliant is the foundation that we stand on, not the feeling that we reach for. The fact is that we have legislated ourselves and we’ve safeguarded ourselves against actually being able to love children. And the truth is that when we are so afraid to love children, the outcome is that children grow up feeling unloved. But the real safeguarding is the relationship that that child has with that adult every day who looks after them, who has an understanding of their needs, has an awareness in their changes, in their mood, in their behaviour. And what that looks like, that looks like love and that looks like care, and fear cannot drive out fear. Only love can do that, really.

Colby: 2:55

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast. I’m Colby Pearce, and joining me this episode is an inspirational voice in the UK residential care sector. Before we begin our conversation, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands that I come to you from, the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is Carla Keyte. Carla is the founder and director of Lighthouse, bringing extensive expertise in quality, compliance, and safeguarding across the residential childcare sector in the UK. With a background spanning, registered manager, head of care, and head of quality and compliance for an organization operating over 30 homes rated good and outstanding, Carla has deep practical insight into operational leadership, regulatory compliance, and governance. Carla has a proven track record of resolving complex compliance issues and supporting organizations through challenging regulatory actions. Her specialism lies in developing and embedding quality and governance frameworks that drive sustainable improvements and ensure the highest standards of care. Passionate about love-led practice and the power of meaningful relationships, Carla champions approaches that create safe, nurturing, and stable environments where children and young people can truly thrive. Her expertise in implementing integrated therapeutic models enables her to support organizations to meet children’s emotional, social, and developmental needs with compassion, structure, and intentionality. Carla founded Lighthouse to provide expert guidance and tailored support to providers navigating an increasingly complex regulatory landscape. Her mission is to empower teams to deliver values-based, child-centred practice that goes beyond compliance, creating homes that are safe, stable, and loving. The name Lighthouse reflects Carla’s vision to act as a guiding beacon for organizations illuminating the path through complexity towards excellence in care, safeguarding, and relational practice. Welcome, Carla.

Carla: 5:53

Well, Colby, what uh uh an intro there. Thank you, and thank you for having me.

Colby: 5:59

Yes, well, you’re welcome. It is a good one. And what what isn’t in there, and I often ask people if there’s anything that they’d like to add. Um, but many people are just a little bit um uh overwhelmed by hearing hearing their life’s work read back to them. Um but I I kind of discovered you, although I did I discovered you for my must for myself, not in a talent uh talent identification uh way, but through through your writing, and you just you write beautifully um on uh social media platform. They’re not sponsoring me yet, so I won’t mention LinkedIn. Oh there you go, I did. They shed Yeah, so you you write beautifully on there about um the provision of care in residential residential children’s homes. And um yeah, and so that that’s how I I first I guess came across your work and uh and here you are on the podcast.

Carla: 7:05

Lovely, thank you, thank you, no, really, Colby. And I think for me is somebody once said the uh pen is mightier than the sword, and I do. I write a lot of poems and expression and emotion, and I write a lot about my belief that love saves lives, and that comes from my own personal experiences, but my experience of working in the residential sector and seeing how you know the relationships that we form with children, with adults supporting them and the network are able to really uh change children’s lives and help to heal their trauma. And I think it’s a very difficult time within the residential sector. We talk a lot about policy, procedure, practice, regulation, offset, all of these things are important, and no doubt we’re going to discuss them today, Colby. But you know, that forefront for me and summarising everything that we are keen to talk about is empowering safe, stable, loving homes for children. We believe genuinely with our whole heart that every child deserves a safe, stable, loving home, and that our residential services need support to be able to do that. And love uh takes a village to raise children, right?

Colby: 8:31

Yeah, absolutely. So um let’s just start with with that. What do you see as being the role and purpose of of children’s residential homes? And um have you noticed anything that’s shifted over the last over the period of time that you’ve been working in the sector?

Carla: 8:51

Mm-hmm. No, I have, and I I think it’s interesting because the core purpose of a children’s home is actually beautifully very simple. And it is to provide a safe, stable, loving home for children that cannot live within their own families. I think what has shifted over the last ten years is our understanding of what that really means. And so our children’s homes regulations 2015 are, you know, still very valid when you look through the lens of what children need, but our understanding over time, you know, 10 years ago we talked about placements and behaviour management and risk reduction and contact, and now we talk about home and family time and adults who love and and care for children, and so we, you know, in the sector have really developed an understanding that children heal through relationships, and yet the compliance is the kind of ground on which we stand upon, but not necessarily in the way in which healing can be measured. You know, we now know that kind of trauma lives in the body and that safety is a psychological experience that we develop through relationship, not necessarily just through kind of policy and procedure and tick box and uh healing is developed through emotionally attuned adults who are able to regulate with children and support them to make sense of their trauma. So I don’t think that the purpose has changed. I think potentially that our clarity has, our knowledge has, our understanding of neuroscience and biology and how trauma shapes and contaminates experiences for the children that we look after.

Colby: 10:55

Yeah, so the I guess the the as you say, the language and the the degree of focus on that that primary task or that purpose of children’s homes has become clearer and more more defined. And do you think that there’s been a change in the experience of the young people who reside in um residential homes uh associated with that?

Carla: 11:21

Yeah, absolutely. And when we talk to and engage with care-experienced young people, what they tell us is important to them are those relationships, are those adults that showed up consistently, calmly, attuned again and again, those adults that took the time to notice and spend time and build strong relationships. That’s really where safety is is built and felt actually in relationship.

Colby: 11:53

It’s interesting. I’ve had um a number of guests talk about um alumni uh as such of of children’s residential homes, going back quite a number of or spread through the podcast episodes and um uh interestingly, what they report is that children who have been in um residential homes generally and even uh the through specific ones that um I’ve had people associated with them uh on the podcast, is that is that they give they give generally give positive feedback about their experience, sometimes incredibly positive feedback about their experience in residential um child homes, that probably flies in the face a little bit of what policy makers think is in the best interest of children.

Carla: 12:50

I think we can’t be naive, you know, Kobe. The the facts still show that a lot of children, a number of high number of children who are up in residential care or looked after are more likely to end up in prison than they are in university, and that is a sad fact. But I don’t think it can take away from the impact of relationships, and what we hear consistently time and time and time again, is one person who uh shows up unconditionally with uh positive regard for a child who builds relationships can help to heal that trauma and change the direction of a person’s or a child’s adult’s life, actually, not just children. It’s true for us as human beings in terms of our understanding and knowledge in relation to trauma informed practice. Residential care often can be perceived as an institution or a last choice, or or especially a lot in the media of um money grabbing, or or we’ve got a lot of concerns around profiteering, and you know, I can’t take away again even from those concerns, Colby, but what I see when I work across the sector is resilience and passion and people who care and turn up every day to work with some of society’s most traumatised children, and what I also see is that the power of love and relationships can really shape and help children heal from traumatised experiences in their early years.

Colby: 14:34

So when you visit a home, what what do you see that um really I guess um encourages you or or or reassures you that this is a safe and stable, loving home for for the children and young people who live there?

Carla: 14:56

It’s primarily going to be about children’s voice, isn’t it? We talk a lot about beyond compliance. So, for example, if we consider what is good when we look at the offset framework, how do we measure good currently? The SCIF, the common inspection framework really sets out what that looks like for residential children’s game, but how do we measure what is felt? How do we understand if children feel loved and safe and cared for? Because often the measurement isn’t how many incidents we’ve had, but how we are supporting children through those feelings, through those experiences to uh manage and learn and grow from and through their trauma. So what does good look like? What does it feel like? It feels safe, it feels emotionally safe, it feels like children who feel safe in their bodies enough to play and experience and grow and engage in the community. It feels like children who are able to build relationships with adults and adults who are creating environments that feel and reflect on, where children genuinely seen, felt, heard, loved, and cared for, and where adults are supported with the psychological safety and security to be able to do that in a in a professional and containing way for children.

Colby: 16:32

And I wonder whether um the the the standards, the safeguarding standards um that exist in relation to or the regulatory standards that exist in relation to uh assessing children’s homes. And we see a lot on uh LinkedIn a lot about inspection outcomes. Um I guess I’m just wondering about what relationship you see between those inspection outcomes that that come through those through the regulation system and process and the children’s experience of the home. And is there a relationship between what what the um how how homes are rated by Ofstead and the children’s experience in those homes?

Carla: 17:27

Yeah. And you know, the the truth is a lot of homes are a great number, most number of homes are are rated Ofstead good, and and you would I would consider that are delivering safe, stable, loving homes for children. Um the lens again in which we look at that trauma-informed approach, the relational uh measurement of care, I think is the aspect that needs to catch up. So um often in the other end of the inspection cycle requires improvement, inadequate compliance. That’s not really particularly trauma-informed language. It’s not the way in which we speak to each other or or we talk when we’re coaching and we’re developing and we’re supporting homes on that journey of understanding. Because as much as children need safe, stable, loving environments in order to thrive, actually, so do adults. Um, and if we think about homes and organizations as kind of um organic structures, uh, we need to be considering how not only do we provide safe, stable, loving homes, but how do we create safe, stable, loving organizations? How do we create an inspection framework because it is necessary and helpful, that uh breeds love instead of fear, because I think a lot of the time the sense of judgment and negative language and narrative that we’ve created creates this sense of fear, and we know that in order to create safe environments for children, adults need to feel psychologically safe and contained, and therefore the organization needs to be the container for that.

Colby: 19:28

Yeah, it’s you make a very good point. We would never in trauma-informed work, we would never assess someone, a child, as being inadequate. No, as not meeting up to our standards. Yeah.

Carla: 19:44

And I I’ve thought a lot about this. I think safe, stable, loving homes at Lighthouse is the lens in which we look at everything, whether that’s a call for training or compliance support. Over the last five years, we’ve supported a number of organizations. Organisations that have been inadequate in compliance, primarily around Regulation 12 and safeguarding and Regulation 13 leadership. And what we see is this sense of kind of blame and finger pointing and failure. And I think that it sits alongside sometimes often this narrative around residential care that you know it’s profiteering. But when we think about children in the family home or foster care, and we have safeguarding concerns, what we do is we enact child protection procedures, we enact safeguarding structures, we enact working together, multi-agency support and development for children and families and homes. But uh within the current inspection framework, we’ve become um a much more enforcement-aimed perspective. And some of that is is absolutely necessary. But I believe that in order to have a much more um relational inspection process, we should be asking ourselves, is this a safe, stable, loving home for children? Or is this a home that requires support to be a safe, stable, loving home for children? And I actually genuinely believe that Offset should be a safeguarding partner. And where homes are facing a challenge, then we should enact similar processes to child protection procedures where we have a team of specialists, the inspectors, the local authorities, leadership team, residential specialists, uh, those with trauma-informed and therapeutic experience to help that home provide safe, stable loving homes for children, or to consider what needs to be done in order to develop that further. And you know, in some points that might be that children need different intervention and support, but overarchingly, when we have a clear common goal, when we take away that blame language and we reframe it as safeguarding partnership, we keep children much more at the focus and adults who are supporting them who turn up every day with a huge level of love and care and resilience, uh, to be able to uh provide children with safety, stability, and love in a regulated way.

Colby: 22:54

Yeah, they’re they’re all very interesting points, and in and it in some ways it taps into one of the purposes I had, or one of the intentions I had in starting the podcast, um, which was to change the language about around children’s residential childcare more generally. But I think also I have had long-standing concerns about the impact of how external bodies, whether they be a regulator, whether they be the media, the uh judiciary or or uh even the local child protection, statutory child protection authority, I’ve been concerned about the language that they is used about the workforce that they’re offering commentary, assessment, decision, you know, judgment about. And in residential care, um I when I see a children’s minister, for example, advertise on social media something along the lines of um we, you know, our government has uh established this new service family-based for bad family-based care of children and young people that will save save X number of children from residential care.

Carla: 24:18

Yeah.

Colby: 24:18

And and when I see that, it makes my blood boil because I just think whatever your views are about residential care, residential child care, um there are kids that are in it. And it’s not it’s it and it is quite a heterogeneous group. There are there are always examples of of not so good um residential child care homes. Yeah. Just as and and and there are also examples of outstanding uh um home experiences for children. And I guess now I’m getting on my my my soapbox a little bit, but I I think that if you’ve got if you’re the if you’re you’ve got the power to change, then because you do, and you’ve got concerns about our residential childcare sector, then then do something about it. Um and I but as just to finish my other point, which was I I’m always very concerned about the experience of the staff when when they are aware of those direct messages that residential care is something to be avoided at all costs, that it is is the option of last resort. And I think the the cost at all costs, that cost has that double meaning because I think you know it is perhaps more expensive in some ways than than other forms of care. Um but so what? You know, raising children is expensive. And I think that that whole language around it is the option of last resort really cheats cheats children, cheats homes and children out of being resourced to the level that that adequately, more than adequately meets their needs.

Carla: 26:06

Yeah. And and our sector has become driven by that fear-based language and experience. So adult supporting children feel that. We need a huge amount of resources to be able to support children who’ve experienced significant trauma, relational rupture, uh, exploitation at the hands of society. These are children who have been harmed and hurt, not what we often consider to be naughty children, or and you know, beyond that, our children’s homes have often been considered historically as kind of last resorts and institutions and places where you know we’re lacking love and support. And I think that’s a key thing for me in all of those roles, in all of those aspects, in all of the policies, procedures, practice, in every offset report I’ve read in every policy we’ve built, every role. The thing that stands fundamentally at the core of it, Colby, that I have always been is a love-led practitioner.unknown: 27:38

Yeah.

Carla: 27:39

I believe genuinely that love saves lives and children heal, and we can heal trauma and relational rupture and attachment uh disorder through building strong, safe relationships with children. And in order to do that, we need to have a frameworks that support us to boldly love children.

Colby: 28:02

So, what I’m taking from what you’re saying is that um the very things that um that support a felt sense of psychological safety, a felt sense of mattering, a felt sense of belonging, yeah. All of the a felt sense of connection to others needs to be built into any assessment framework when one is from a from a regulatory point of view, um turning one’s mind to the safety and well-being of children.

Carla: 28:42

Yeah, absolutely. What does a safe, stable, loving home for this child look like? Because you know, we talk about regulation, but actually the truth is called, we’ve got a number of children, foster homes, supported accommodation, we’ve got challenges with homes getting regulated, we’ve got children, more children now than we’ve ever had in unregulated care. So the question or the key question for me is you know, is this child experiencing a safe, stable, loving home? And if not, what do we need to do about it? Because, you know, this kind of finger pointing and blame culture of the residential sector, the demonizing is not the truth. There are aspects of it that need to be controlled. But the truth is when I travel across the sector in the 20 years I’ve worked in this um arena, but more so in the last five years where I’ve been supporting homes to embed safe, stable, loving homes model and to really consider what does that mean on a day-to-day? What I see is resilience and love and care, and people who are passionate and who are genuinely able to make a difference to children’s lives and even the national agenda, you know, things that are being said at a national level this week. I’m not going to involve myself in that debate so much, but they they build on this rhetoric that the residential sector is broken and that we’re you know not doing and that we’re costing, and but the cost of of not loving children is that children grow up feeling not loved, and the impact of that is so much wider than you know whether residential care should be the first choice for children or not.

Colby: 30:44

From my perspective, it’s about building social capital, it’s building good social capital by investing in good res good quality, high-quality residential care, which already exists out there, and looking at those providers that provide excellent high-quality care and how what we can understand about the way they work and the way they practice and how that can be um supported across the across the sector. Um yeah, I it is I always say when you when you improve the life of an individual child, you also improve the life of their life partner or life partners, their children and their grandchildren. That’s that’s the social cat the accumulating social capital effect of actually intervening um therapeutically with our children. And another thing that you said that I thought was really important and is we need and I guess it was it was uh it was a post that you put on in on LinkedIn about understanding that um that I has got uh drew my attention to your work, but is that what you just said just now about individualized care plans and assessing assessing homes perhaps, supporting homes. An assessment can be therapeutic. I mean, if you’re doing therapy, you’re always assessing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So have a baseline. That’s right. An assessment is in a therapeutic sense is is about where are we at and where do we want to get to. Yeah. Where an assessment in other contexts can be about deficit. What are the deficits and how do we ri remediate those deficits? So if we if we want a system that is more is therapeutic, and we want that because um people perform better in the role where they have a regulatory system that is therapeutic. And that assess that system perhaps needs to uh assess the capacity of the home to meet the individual love and safety and belonging and mattering needs of the children. And I guess a point that has been brought up, and not to steal the the floor too much, is what do you do with the most unhappy, the most traumatized, the most complex young people? If we have a if we have a system that has rigid standards as such that don’t move with the individualized needs of children, then you’ll you’ll create a a certain category of children that become perhaps I’m tr I’m struggling to think of a better word, but a a liability or a threat to the standing of the home. So we never want a regulatory system that excludes certain children from care.

Carla: 34:04

Yeah, and and I think we have seen that a lot within the regulated sector. It’s why we’ve got such a high number of children in unregulated or unregistered, we’ve got a number of delays in the registration process for um offset registered homes. But I think what it comes back to me for each time, Bobby, is the same key question. What does a safe, stable, loving home look like for this child? And what do we need to do in order to achieve it? So often, you know, we get calls from uh across the sector in the last five years, homes that have been inadequate, compliant, children that are moving to and from unregulated care and needing those levels of support. And the first question that we ask, we use the lighthouse lens and we say that actually, in reality, safety, safeguarding, the foundation of everything we do is built on a foundation of safeguarding. In our model, we say on the left hand side we have a triangle and it’s quality and compliance or really equates to stable. And then we look at strategic intervention. What does that look like? What do we need to put in place? And often that’s where our love leg practice comes in place. So safe, stable loving homes for children. And if we think about Johnny, we say, what do we need to do to safeguard Johnny? What quality and compliance are we working within? What policy procedure is Johnny in a regulated, unregulated home? What do we need to put in place to support that? What strategic intervention, what support or intervention, trauma-informed therapeutic practice, love, leg care, keyword sessions, referral support for multi-agency services through effective assessment does little Johnny need? But we don’t stop there. We have to then say, what about the adults? What do we need to do to safeguard out the adults that are looking after Johnny? How do we help them to do that in the most stabilising way in terms of quality and compliance? What interventions do we need to put in place for them through supervision and training, reflective practice that help us create a sense of psychological safety for adults? But again, Colby, we can’t stop there. We have to say the home and then wider. What we’ve been saying is, you know, okay, as an organization, what do you need to do to ensure safe, stable, loving homes for children? And we’ve been embedding this model in children’s homes across the sector and children’s homes that have been under scrutiny through inspection that who are now long-standing, good and outstanding homes, not because they’ve learned to take the inspection box and framework, but they’ve really considered their culture, their purpose. What does it mean to provide a safe, stable, individualized home for children and to help adults to feel safe enough to love and care for those children on a daily basis?

Colby: 37:32

There’s clearly a role for leadership in that aspect of this conversation. But before I I moved there, while I was listening to you speak, it occurred to me that some people know that I have a history of nearly 15 years working in the regulatory sector, the health practitioner regulation scheme here in Australia, uh, in the psychology part of it. And sometimes in regulation the standards can either be you know broad principles, you know, appro that we we aspire to, or they c they can be quite prescriptive about the things that um we want to see. And I think I think with the latter if you if you look at the children that um that are cared for within um within residential child uh homes or children’s homes, then a a a fairly prescriptive model or or set of standards for regulation, I think, um will certainly lack nuance. It’s a very new very nuanced area, potentially. But also I I think about what the level, you know, what what is the what is the level at which we pitch it? Do we live a is it pitch at the level of the the bare minimum? This is this is the the ba the this is the um the let the standard of care we expect everyone to be in. And I don’t want to draw this similarity the the the relationship with Winnicott’s idea of the good enough parent, because I think his idea of the good enough parent is is is but this this i is a really good one in in some expressions, in certain, you know, for example in in assessing assessing on an individualized basis, if you apply it on an individualized basis, but if you have standards that try to I’m trying to come up with language that isn’t, and so I’m gonna say it, lowest common denominator in a sense.

Carla: 39:53

Yeah. I think for me, what we say is compliance. Is the foundation that we stand on, not the ceiling that we reach for. And so it’s beyond compliance. We do need a set of regulations, we do need standards, we still need a set of guidance, the way in which we look at that, and you know, how it’s framed, I think, needs to be more relational and really considering what does that look like for individual children? Is this a service that’s providing a safe, stable, loving home for children? Or in the same way as families, do they need support to be able to do so? And I think that frames that much more in terms of our kind of trauma informed support language assessment. You can’t have a one-size fits all necessarily, but what you can have is a commitment, a promise. And actually, we can see that you know, if we look at Scotland, Scotland have uh the national promise. And I think the thing that I could say to you, Colby, in my whole career that I am most proud of is that I am currently the lead for the Love and Care Network in partnership with our colleagues over at Children’s Homes Quality, and we are working to build a village to really communicate the power of loving relationships in children’s homes, to create the framework and the training and the modules so that we can stand loud and proud and say, actually, our children alert, the evidence basis here for it, the neuroscience supports it, the practice, the research in practice, attachment theory, whether we look at all of the layers of our evidence of care over the last 15 years since the children’s homes regulations were embedded, show us that children can thrive and do thrive in homes where they feel safe, supported, loved, and cared for, and we need to be able to provide the framework that supports individual homes for individual children at a time in which they need it.

Colby: 42:32

Yeah, the the the the promise is uh uh somewhat paradigm shifting, I think, in the sense that, and I think we’ve kind of moved a little bit around this topic, but um the idea of loving the children in in your care has been polluted in a sense by concerns around what what do professional boundaries look like.

Carla: 43:01

Yeah, absolutely.

Colby: 43:03

And if you so so that’s a really good example of where a safeguarding standard actually contributes to a poorer outcome for children and other people. It’s that that the law of unintended consequences in a s in a sense, you know, no good deed goes unpunished. We keep a professional distance, we keep bat we maintain boundaries, and then what what what what are the consequences of doing that for for our children in terms of their experience of whether they matter, whether they’re loved. What the promise Scotland really um um restores for us is our ability to to actually say that the ch the children need love and that’s and that’s part of our role. That that is it that’s not a boundary transgression that that’s not even an uh it’s not even um poor practice. It’s a it’s a fundamental human need. Yeah. And if we can’t provide that, then what what are we doing? What are we here for?

Carla: 44:22

Yeah, yeah. And you know, the the neuroscience supports this. And the um fact is that we have legislated ourselves and we have safeguarded ourselves against actually being able to love children. And the truth is that when we are so afraid to love children, the outcome is that children grow up feeling unloved, funnily enough. Um it’s interesting, isn’t it? Because a lot of these policies, this is the line I think between safeguarding and love. And I’ve what I’ve come to the conclusion of in all my research and thinking, Colby, is that the most purest form of safeguarding is love. Children need to feel safe, they need to feel regulated, they need adults that are going to hold boundaries, hold them in mind, and be able to, you know, hold some of those experiences that they have been through. When we safeguard against that, when we historically, when we think about compliance and safeguarding practice, we think about have you filled out the safeguarding form, have you informed offset, have you done a Reg 40? We think about safeguarding compliance, policy, procedure, practice. But the truth is none of those things actually keep the child any safer. They inform people of the safeguarding need, they put a network around, and of course, those things are very important. But the real safeguarding is the relationship that that child has with that adult every day who looks after them, who has an understanding of their needs, has a awareness in their changes, in their mood, in their behavior. And what that looks like, that looks like love and that looks like care, and fear cannot drive out fear. Only love can do that, really.

Colby: 46:30

Yeah, well, I think that’s a very well-made point. And my mind where my mind is going, you know, on the basis of what you’re you’re saying, is if we assess for performance, if that that’s that’s what that’s a bit like those two different types of assessment that that I was referring to earlier. The as one is the assessment of performance and capacity and and ability to do to perform us in a certain task or role. The other is about um assessing particular a person’s circumstances or an organization’s circumstances and turning our minds to where how what are we what do we implement, how do we support, what what what is the intervention to the intervention. And that the therapeutic intervention. And that’s a that’s a different type of safeguarding. One from one and and I I see this this is really relevant across safeguarding because of children, because people are talking about this in terms of what child protection system how child protection systems should function. That you know, so a lot of the time the way they function is that a parent a family is in deep trouble, and they assess them to be in deep trouble, and the children are un uh are unsafe, and they remove those those children. Yeah. But it but the dialogue part of the problem with that is is then we also know that governments and their and their art agencies struggle to provide the the the care that children need. That yeah, and they will always struggle, I would say. There’s nothing that they they cannot replace the birth-family connection by and large. So they’ll always struggle with that. And what what’s coming into the more and more I’m seeing it um in terms of what people are saying about our our uh child protection systems more broadly is that the intervention should be more a therapeutic one. Yes, we assess, we assess the si the layer of the land as we find it, and rather than making a judgment at that point in in relation to a line, what we say is what what are the therapeutic interventions here? Yes. They get the get this family, they get this foster care placement that you know where there’s been a care concern, they get this children’s home to a place. And and this is the the important thing is if that is if if that’s a philosophy that underpins our regulatory or our child protection system, then um it naturally follows that we’re looking for strengths to build on. We’re un we’re we’re understanding the circum what the circumstances here, not from a point of view of of judgment, of judgment and decision making, but from a point of view of how do we address those circumstances therapeutically. Yeah.

Carla: 49:55

And and I think in in a lot of ways that’s the same foundation and model that we and Lens that we’ve built at at Lighthouse. And now I remember a very old boss of mine, she said to me, Um, Carlish, said you, you you’re fantastic at safeguarding children. I was a residential manager. When the kids are in your care, they’re really safe. I’m working with high-risk young ladies, uh, young ladies at high risk of exploitation. And uh she said, it’s like you’re running around the country with a cage and catch these kids, and when they’re in your cage, they’re safe. But what happens when you lift up the cage? And then you start to consider okay, a lot of people work really hard to safeguard children. We’ve got Johnny, he’s safe. We’ve done the quality and compliance, we’ve told Offstead, we’re sold to the social worker, we’ve told the people, we followed the procedure. But what are we going to do? What’s the intervention? What’s the strategic intervention that little Johnny needs? Is that you know stronger keyworking, attuned adults? Is it, you know, referral pathway, mental health support, you know, is it that he needs uh education, different care planning aspects? But then not only what intervention does little Johnny need, what intervention do the adults need to be able to provide a safe, stable, loving home to be emotionally and psychologically contained and safe to do so. So the two things can’t be separate. We used to teach our adults, and and and there is a contrary to it in our safeguarding policies, in our professional boundaries, leave yourself at the door. Don’t be behind a closed door with a child, don’t hug a child, God forbid you tell them that you love them or that you care for them or you might buy them a small gift when you go on holiday. And all of these safeguarding policies and procedures, Gobby, they they were built to safeguard our children from predators through the last 15 years, where we’ve seen, you know, serious and significant um child protection cases in our media across our country, across the world, across our sector. Failure upon failure is if you would have it to believe that way. But we’ve created all of these policies that do safeguard children, but inadvertently they safeguard them from being loved and supported because 15-year-old boys aren’t sitting in the living room in front of numerous adults talking about their feelings and crying in their trauma, and they’re crying at three o’clock in the morning in their bedroom with an adult who’s taken the time to build a relationship, and the door probably is going to be closed, and you probably are going to be sat on the bedroom floor crying and feeling and experiencing. And once upon a time, we were told, you know, don’t bring the emotion, it’s not effective safeguarding. But children need adults that show up for them, that care for them, that love them, that hold them in mind, that build trust and build a sense of safety, not just in tick boxes, not just on paper. The paper that you, the poem that you read, I think, you know, we don’t require improvement, we require understanding, understanding that children have experienced trauma, understanding that adults holding that is messy, understanding that leaders need an incredible amount of resilience, and yet often we, you know, we fail to understand the trauma, the need for love, the investment that that takes to show up every day. It’s one of the most difficult jobs that I have ever done, and I am have never been so proud to stand here today in that capacity as my lead for loving care. I’ve been an effective safeguarding uh practitioner, I’ve driven changes in quality and compliance and offstead inspection. The regulatory framework is important, but at the heart of it all, if we don’t keep the love, if we don’t reclaim it, if we don’t say it out loud, if we is there in our regulatory framework and coming all the way back round, you know, Colby, we talked about the promise in Scotland. I believe that we should go one step further. And I call on, you know, the UK government to invest in every child having a safe, stable, loving home, whether those children are in foster care, whether those children are unaccompanied asylum seekers, children living in residential homes or supported accommodation. And I urge our government to go one step further and say care doesn’t stop at 16 or 18. Children, you know, we talk about transitions and independence, but actually the reality is children, adults, human beings need sustaining loving relationships. And one person who loves you unconditionally can build resilience, can shape your future, and can help to help children overcome the trauma that they have experienced so that they can go on to live, you know, really fulfilling uh lives and and to break that aspect of, as we talked about earlier, intergenerational trauma. It’s a big thing there, Colby.

Colby: 55:48

Yeah, yeah. So, Carla, it’s it has been a real uh pleasure, joy to have you on the podcast and discuss these matters with you. Is there any final thoughts that you would like to uh leave our listeners or watchers with?

Carla: 56:08

Yeah, I think that’s it. There’s one real message from this conversation. I hope it’s this, Colby, because children don’t heal in systems, they heal in safe, stable, loving homes, um, held by adults and leadership that feel safe enough to stay open and steady enough to kind of stay present through these experiences, you know, through the difficult times and to stand with them. So I think you know, we don’t need harsher systems, we actually need a more understanding one. We don’t require improvement, we require understanding because when we build homes where love is protected, we have clear evidence that love saves lives.

Colby: 56:54

Yeah. Wonderful, thank you. Thank you very much, Kamala, and uh yeah, thank you for coming on the pod.

Carla: 57:03

Lovely, thank you, Colby.

Disclaimer: Information reported by guests of this podcast is assumed to be accurate as stated. Podcast owner Colby Pearce is not responsible for any error of facts presented by podcast guests. In addition, unless otherwise specified, opinions expressed by guests of this podcast may not reflect those of the podcast owner, Colby Pearce.

Truth First: Caring Beyond The System – A Podcast interview with Louise Allen

Louise Allen shares powerful insights into care leaver voice, identity, belonging and systemic reform. We discuss trauma, hope, and what genuinely improves outcomes for young people after care. Authentic, challenging and full of lived-experience wisdom.

Truth First: Caring Beyond The System

The conversation opens with a quiet kind of fire: a creative child who became an adult unwilling to walk past injustice. Louise Allen traces how identity is broken and remade in the care system, starting with forced adoption, secrecy, and prejudice that rewrites a child’s story before they can speak. She points to a simple principle that echoes through trauma research and everyday life: children read faces, not forms. A warm gaze, a steady presence, and a smile that means it are more powerful than any policy. The difference between being documented and being seen is the difference between surviving and becoming. In a sector addicted to paperwork, she asks us to put dignity back into each line of text and each moment of care.

What lands hardest is her insistence on truth. She names the layers of dishonesty that creep in: parents threatened by services, children protecting parents, foster carers fearing allegations, and professionals guarding their positions. The result is a record that often fails the child. Louise reframes practice with human clarity: say the answer the child is carrying, not another question they have to endure. Put a photo of the child in meetings so adults remember who is missing from the room. Write logs to the child, not about the child, because they will read them. These are not soft gestures; they are structural fixes for a culture that forgets its purpose. Dignity, not detail, is the bedrock of therapeutic care.

Louise’s stories about dogs bring the science of attachment to life. Contact comfort beats cold compliance. A dog that curls up on a lap or cries for help at the right moment can lower arousal, interrupt self-harm, and offer non-judgmental presence that many adults struggle to sustain. She’s seen dogs act as quiet co-therapists, sensing when to stay, when to get help, and when to simply be warm and heavy in a child’s arms. This is Harlow’s lesson without the lab: safety is felt, not filed. If schools and services greeted young people with genuine warmth, many refusals and ruptures would soften before they harden. Body language, tone, and welcome matter. Train for them.

Her writing life started with a “misery memoir” she wasn’t allowed to make funny, then expanded into the Thrown Away Children series that tells real stories with grit and humour. She writes for foster carers too, because the role is treated like domestic labour while demanding clinical-level skill. Minimum standards won’t raise outcomes; maximum care does. That means training that respects complexity, contracts that recognise the work, and leaders who listen to those doing the night shifts. Foster care isn’t babysitting; it’s relational craftsmanship under pressure. When carers are silenced, children lose.

Spark Sisterhood began with a bag of groceries and red velvet cakes delivered to girls who had just left residential care. The “cliff edge” was brutal: isolation, inconsistent allowances, addictions funded in placement and unfunded after, fear of leaving the flat, no routine, no trust. Spark’s answer is practical and kind: life skills, first aid, real cooking, self-defence, image confidence, employment law, and a bridge to industries that pay—construction, engineering, and tech. Care-to-Career matches young women with apprenticeships and work experience, not as charity, but as an on-ramp to dignity, agency, and wages that break the poverty cycle.

Threaded through is one recurring truth: one good adult can tilt a life toward hope. Sometimes it is a neighbour with jokes and a garden; other times it is a foster carer who bakes, smiles, and writes logs like letters. The system counts hours, but children count moments. Louise’s challenge is simple and tough: tell the truth, keep the child in the room even when they aren’t there, and choose warmth over control. When adults do that, the care system begins to look less like a maze and more like a path.

You can listen to the podcast here:

You can watch the podcast here:

About Louise:

Louise is the award-winning author behind the bestselling Thrown Away Children series. Her stories draw from the lived experiences of being part of a foster family. Her brand-new series, Slave Girls, continues her mission to share the real, often unheard stories of children and young people—with courage, honesty, and hope.
 
Through Spark Sisterhood, Louise is building a community where girls from care are met with friendship and essential life and employment skills, and where they are encouraged to believe in themselves and their futures. One of the charity’s most exciting projects is Care to Career, a two-week programme that offers girls jobs, apprenticeships and work experience by working with employers. The programme supports young women aged 18–25. It’s about more than just finding a job, which they do, it’s about creating space for young women to thrive.
 
At the heart of everything Louise does is a belief in the power of real-life stories. Through the marketing agency, Louise, she helps founders, charities, and mission-led companies connect more deeply with their audiences through branding, content, and campaigns that are built with empathy and purpose. Whether it’s supporting a small charity or reshaping how we talk about foster care, Louise brings clarity, heart, and strategy to every project.
 
Having grown up in care and now fostering children herself, Louise understands the care system from the inside out; she has a unique 360? understanding. She is a respected and leading voice. Her work is now focused on changing the conversation around fostering in the UK by challenging the fear-led culture, the lack of collaboration between agencies, and the reliance on legislation to drive change. Instead, she’s advocating for honest dialogue, practical solutions, and a shared commitment to putting children and carers first.

Related Podcasts:

If you really like my conversation with Louise, you may also like these other conversations:

Dr Hayley Lugassy

Ben Perks

Transcript:

Colby: 0:00

Hello, and welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Louise: 0:05

And I began to use creativity as a way of thinking and a way of working. And sometimes you get drawn to these things because you just can’t live with the injustices that go on. And if you see it and you know it, you can’t walk past it. That man saved my life. So again, the other thing I would say is things aren’t always what you think they are. The people on paper who were meant to be really good and kind and the puppy were not. The people next door who were poor, who uh were a bit rough on the edges, I guess, were the kindest people I met. I have to absolutely believe it. If we put the children leave, genuinely, genuinely hot fellow, actually with a bit green, fellows, will all the green, and the children. I wanted to be very happy on a dream. Somebody who smiled with the simple gonna eat me. But just someone who’s a child. It’s all in the face. That’s all I wanted. It wasn’t about money, it wasn’t about material things, it was about that feeling that you were with an adult that looked at you with kindness in their eyes because it was in the heart. And children read that instantly. So I think most of the work we do could be helped if we worked on ourselves first minimum. Why aren’t they maximally? No one ever tells the truth in this world. It’s layers of eyes. The parents don’t tell the truth because they’re in a position of failure and threat from the children’s social care. The children don’t tell the truth because they’re loyalties to their parents. Uh, and they say a lot of what they think people want to hear because they’re used to it. Foster carers don’t tell the truth because they’re terrified of obligation. Social workers don’t tell the truth because they fear that they might lose the foster carer. Yet no one is telling the truth. So I thought, wouldn’t it be fun just to tell the truth?

Colby: 2:23

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast. I’m Colby Pierce, and joining me for this episode is an inspirational UK-based foster carer, author, artist, and champion of post-care support for young women. Before we begin, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the lands that I come to you from, the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is Louise Allen. Louise is the award-winning author behind the best-selling thrown away children series. Her stories draw from the lived experiences of being part of a foster family. Her brand new series, Slave Girls, continues her mission to share the real, often unheard stories of children and young people with courage, honesty, and hope. Through Spark Sisterhood, Louise is building a community where girls from care are met with friendship, an essential life and employment skills, and where they are encouraged to believe in themselves and in their futures. One of the charity’s most exciting projects is Care to Career, a two-week program that offers girls jobs, apprenticeships, and work experience by working with employers. The program supports young women aged 18 to 25. It is about more than just finding a job, which they do. It’s about creating a space for young women to thrive. At the heart of everything Louise does is a belief in the power of real life stories. Through the marketing agency Louise, she helps founders, charities, and mission-led companies connect more deeply with their audiences through branding, content, and campaigns that are built with empathy and purpose. Whether it’s supporting a small charity or reshaping how we talk about foster care, Louise brings clarity, heart, and strategy to every project. Having grown up in care and now fostering children herself, Louise understands the care system from the inside out. She has a unique 360-degree understanding. She is a respected and leading voice. Her work is now focused on changing the conversation around fostering in the UK by challenging the fear-led culture, the lack of collaboration between agencies, and the reliance on legislation to drive change. Instead, she’s advocating for honest dialogue, practical solutions, and a shared commitment to putting children and carers first. Welcome, Louise.

Louise: 5:44

Hello, Colby. Thank you so much. That was was that me you were talking about?

Colby: 5:50

Well, of course it was. And I know that that uh from our uh conversations already, that’s only part of the story, and maybe we’ll we’ll get into that um a little bit more as as we go through the podcast. And uh thankfully, it being late in the day and me tripping over my tongue, I can edit those bits out um in the in the final product. Um, but I just wanted perhaps just to kick us off, Louise. Is there anything that you would add to that um that bio?

Louise: 6:24

Um the only thing I would kind of not add but uh highlight because I think it’s important uh to explain why someone like me would become so committed to the work I do. And and I do feel like it’s sometimes it’s accidental. It wasn’t I was quite happy working in fashion and art, floating around, wafting, having a lovely time, but um it felt incredibly um trivial and sometimes uh not very important when in the back of my mind, my own experiences of the care system, because I was in care from before I was born, um it kind of didn’t halt my creative career, it kind of changed it. And I began to use creativity as a way of thinking and a way of working, and sometimes you get drawn to these things because you just can’t live with the injustices that go on, and if you see it and you know it, you can’t walk past it. You just can’t. So when I found out about my own understanding of myself, I because you you you don’t know your own past until you gather all your evidence and lay it out in front of you, and even then there are holes. Is that um, if I can briefly say from the pro, because I always find this a bit of a shocker, not to me, but people to understand my father was a man in his 30s who was on his second marriage with children. My mother was 12 years old when she met him, or he met her. My father was a serial paedophile, and I found out as I got older. Now that changes the way you think about things because when I say to people my father was a paedophile, they think that it was me that he was having sex with, it wasn’t, it was my mother. So I have a kind of I talk about child abuse a bit like I’m having a cup of tea and a piece of cake because it’s my world that I live in. So that’s the only thing I’d like to say is a kind of disclaimer to why you know I do I bother so much and I care so much.

Colby: 8:28

Yeah, you you’ve touched a bit on that and and your motivation. Um, is there anything else that you would say about where this motive motivation comes from and what continues to motivate you in the the various endeavors that you are engaged in?

Louise: 8:46

I think the motivation, I think you you’re kind of born with it. I I kind of came into the world fighting for the underdog, um, not even realizing I was also one of the underdogs. Um, and I think I saw a lot of pain. I heard a lot of stories. I had a an adoptive mother and foster mothers that always overshared. So I was kind of burdened with their uh knowledge uh about the world. And I you kind of when you’re a child and you get that level of you know, your optics are like that, and you know those stories, you have a huge sense of responsibility, and sometimes it felt too much, but I I’m I’m creative, so I would turn that into something that would work with me. But I’ve always been very aware of how other people feel, and I think that’s my motivation. I can’t, I don’t like people around me being sad or lost or hurt, it bothers me dearly.

Colby: 9:48

So, in some ways, the relief of suffering is is has been a prime motivator for you.

Louise: 9:55

Absolutely, Colby. I’m gonna have to stop one of my dogs is howling. I’m gonna go and shut the door.

Colby: 10:03

We have a shared interest in dogs. You shared a story about how dogs have been uh lifelong friends and companions for you.

Louise: 10:19

Dogs to me are are um to me, they’re the most uh beautiful creatures I can think of. I absolutely love their souls and find them so forgiving for what we do to them. And when I was uh a child, in in my first well, in every single book, I it occurred to me that I was writing as much about my dogs as I was about me. So wherever when when I was in care and when I was at places or at new foster places, or wherever I was, I would find a dog and I would sit with the dog and befriend the dog. And and and at my most saddest times in my life, I found I’m sitting next to a dog, and it was uh I I I just love them dearly. I had a dog that um my adoptive mother got rid of because she got jealous of the devotion I had to the dog, and I came home from school and she just had it put down. And that kind of of all the things she had done to me, and she’d done some pretty horrendous things, that hardened me to the point where I could not, I I knew it was just a matter of time till I left. But she did some horrendous things, but she got my dog killed because she didn’t like the fact I was up ever six o’clock every morning walking it around a university parks in Oxford, and I love my dog’s company, and I still do.

Colby: 11:49

I’ve got two, and I was actually looking at a uh dog rescue last night, just sort of trying to convince my husband that we can have another one, and of course, we’re having this conversation because we just had to have a temporary interlude while you went in um and and did something for one of your dogs, yeah. Who’s having a very uh unnatural experience at the moment?

Louise: 12:14

Yeah, she’s having a fancy pregnancy and she surrounded herself with uh the children’s shoes thinking they’re puppies.

Colby: 12:21

Oh dear, poor thing. Yeah, you yeah, so um you you mentioned your adoptive uh parent and you you you indicated that you um you had foster foster mums as well. Um so I guess from um from my perspective and probably from the perspective of our listeners, they would be really keen to hear about what you think um i i is important for foster carers to know and do in that role in consideration of your your experience of having been um cared for by them and and being a foster parent themselves uh yourself now.

Louise: 13:11

Uh yeah, and I thank you for that. That’s a really important question. And and and probably the the the work I find myself doing, uh consciously or unconsciously, is trying to to unravel that to spare the pain um of the the foster carers, the doctors, and mostly the children and the communities around them, because we don’t do this on our own. We have family and we have neighbors and we have friends that all buy into what our affections are. So my my experience of being in care before I was born um was because of my mother’s age, because she was at school. I was then a forced adoption. Um in England there was a prolific amount of us being adopted. Now I I have often wondered whether that’s connected to the late 60s, to to whether the it was a misuse or no use of the pill and the the kind of culture going on in the background of free love and sex and all the rest of it and misunderstanding. In our case, in my mother’s case, sheer exploitation by a man that was clearly a predator. Um and so you you you there’s a dishonesty, I think, that uh uh underpins uh what what we are because when you are adopted or fostered, the first thing you that happens to you is your identity is changed and you lose your identity. Now, my birth mother, even though I had spoken to her throughout my life, I only found out two years ago that she’s Italian. I had no idea why I was olive. I was told I might be Greek, and you realize that that people, the most important thing is to get the facts right, and if you don’t have the absolute correct facts about identity, about family, and don’t say them, don’t guess, leave the gaps because we can fill them in later. And with the digital world now, we can access stuff on ancestry and so on quite quickly. I think me, I was called manufactured. Um, I was adopted by um a woman on my in my paperwork, which I have in a cupboard over there, uh, should never have adopted children, but she had adopted another child child before me and was under the spotlight for um serious child abuse, but then she was allowed to adopt me two years later. I was originally fostered. Because I think um of the prejudice at the time, I think they knew who my father was. Um he was quite he was uh I met him, he was not a nice person at all. Um and I think they uh my birth plan, not my birth plan, my care plan, the first thing on it was this child must be baptized. So I think the fact I was illegitimate, I was the result of uh uh uh uh because it paedophilia, they would have then I would imagine they would have blamed a girl for her uh behaviour. Um I I would imagine that I was very olive. Well, I faded a bit now, but when I was a child I was uh very dark. Um and I think I had the the the the all the the red flags for sort of devout deep prejudice and racism. So I kind of um was I was I was sort of binned off quite early, and I think I had a sense of that, and then I was um I don’t, you know, you end up becoming when you are a foster child or an adopted child, and you know that you are living with someone else’s family, the the hardest thing is trying to understand your own identity. Then you get to a stage which I got to when I discovered punk when I was a teenager, where you just think, well, I’ll create my own identity, and my identity at that point was angry, creative, and sort of a bit wild. But when I was a child, I remember always feeling that there were conversations and whispers that I was not party to that were about me. When my um uh uh I was introduced to my birth mother because my adopted mother was trying to bin me off quite quickly because she’d had enough of us, and I was an incredibly quiet child. And I think the first thing that we need to understand when we uh work with children from trauma, or we’re giving it to them on a daily basis, is that please watch out for the quiet ones, the shy ones, the quiet ones. We go unnoticed, and so my uh other adopted brother was taken away from me. We used to cling to each other, it was just I came downstairs and he was gone. I just saw a car leaving and he was put into residential care. So I’d lost my ally. I had a uh an Irish navy, and if you don’t know what a navy is, they were they were brought over as cheap labor to build the roads and the railways, and he lived in the caravan in the orchard next door with some um evacuees from World War II, so Polish people. Um, and I used to sneak over there into the caravan for food and company, and I ended up becoming my greatest friend was an Irishman from County Court who lived in a caravan, drank Guinness, and used to protect me. If you read that back, small child in a caravan alone with an Irishman in his 60s and 70s, you would you would be alive. That man saved my life. So, again, the other thing I would say is things aren’t always what you think they are. The people on paper who were meant to be really good and kind and and look after me were not. The people next door who were poor, who uh were a bit rough round the edges, I guess, were the kindest people I met. And learned and and kept he knew what was going on, but he he he kind of created created a magical space for me where I could be a child, and he taught and he had that wonderful Irish humour. So he taught me to laugh as well. So I’m grateful. So what would I say? I’d say you know, things aren’t always what you think they are, and people definitely aren’t always who they seem, and when it comes to trying to do life story work, it’s never the truth, it will never be the truth until we decide it’s the truth and the truth that we can live with. So it’s um, and you learn so many bad things, you know, and and people are embarrassed of us. My adopted mum would introduce me if I’d done well at something, oh, this is my adopted daughter, then then literally blow on her nails and and brush her lapel like it was all her work. You know, you kind of you you you you’re you’re uh you you’re appeasing a lot of people if you’re quiet and shy. And then if you were like my adopted brother, he went through it like a bull in a china shop because he didn’t know what to do with all his emotions. Either way, you’re punished, either way it’s a struggle. But now I’m a foster carer and I have long-term placement, so that’s like you know, a bit like adoption, but much more social work intervention. I’d say that um the most important thing is the truth, and the truth will always do because we find out later. And I’ve and I’ve been, and if someone like me approaches a relative, a birth relative, or somebody from the past, it’s not like the TV shows. We don’t throw our arms around each other and go, Oh my god, you’ll just look at your nose, it’s just like mine. You don’t do that. What you do is you you get a sense that they’re looking at you thinking, What do you want? And people have met relatives who have said to me, I haven’t got any money. But it’s you you’re always seen as the other, you know. If you look, we very rarely get put in wills, and and you know, we we’re not financially taken care of. So I would ask anyone who does it to have a real think about what they why they’re doing it. Is is it to replace something they’ve lost, a child they’ve lost, or a child they’ve never had, because you’re just about to adopt or foster a unique universe that has the whole energy, and your job is to find it and to help them accept their own energy because they’re fighting, children are constantly exhausted, and I see it with my children. I think I’m quite good at what I do, but I can see it in them that they’re trying to bend and twist and to try and second guess how they can keep you happy to give them space to to do what they need to do. And I just think that we gotta do this better.

Colby: 22:33

So there’s three, I guess three main things that I I took from that, Louise. And if there’s some that I missed that you think are important to to also mention, do so. One the the remo the probably the latter one was the importance of understanding the children in your care. Understanding the depth to which they feel is you you use the word outsiders, um you you I know your books, you talk about throwing away children, you use the language of being binned. Um but that understand the depth to of lack or loss of of a feeling of belonging to everyone. And and the other thing that I think you said in there that was I thought really poignant, and um as it happens, I’m I I was writing questions for uh for upcoming podcast guests about the input the who we with whom I’m gonna I plan to be talking about other adults, you know, adults outside of the foster placement or the residential placement or the kinship placement. And um yeah, so you mentioned the the neighbour who the role of that he played in your life was so significant that you you he said you described him as having saved you. And um yeah, it puts me in mind, this is a theme that comes up quite regularly on our podcast about and and in my professional life as well, just about the vital role that um you know having at least one one good adult in your life who sees you, listens to you, and is there for you, particularly when times are tough. And um we know incidentally from um the study I’m most familiar with was a large-scale Irish study that was completed a bit more than a little bit more than 10 years ago now, but of um 12 to 25 year olds that showed that um and quite a lot, and it was quite a large sample size, but it showed that the children um or the the adults who were able to um report that they’d had someone in their life who saw them, who understood them, who was there for them. The difference for that population in terms of mental health and well-being, physical health and well-being, and and problematic behaviours is significant, yeah, whether you have that or you don’t have that. Yeah. So yeah, I don’t know if I missed any of those significant points in there, but there was getting to know the children, being aware of belonging and the and and how significant that is for young people, and and being aware of how the the the role of just being one good adult, at least one good adult. We of course we want more.

Louise: 25:42

It’s well it I I could do my own little uh uh example is that I myself and uh the adopted other adopted brother who is a bit older than me, we live next door to together next to this orchard, but he didn’t have I I’m always curious and always, you know, and and and there were cats and dogs around, you know, so yeah, it was a given for me. I was gonna get close to those animals. And he didn’t have the he didn’t make the effort, I guess, as a child to crawl through the fence and go and introduce himself. I made the effort several times a week um to crawl for the fence and to smile at people and to and I’m a natural smiler, and I I don’t know whether I became a natural smiler for people to like me so I’d be rescued, or I don’t know, we just did it differently, and I think it’s all down to personality. My adopted brother struggles in life hugely, um, whereas I don’t, and I think that connection I had with Sean, the Irishman, was he didn’t say, How are you? How are you feeling? None of that. It was far more come over here and let’s let’s don’t dig this garden, you know. Let’s let’s you know, let’s do it. He used to let me um he had a comb over, he had a bold head and a comb. He used to wear braces and vests, you know, proper old school. And he would sit there reading the local paper, drinking in his name, plat his comb over and put makeup on it. He was completely at ease with himself, but he was very aware, I found out later, what was going on, and I respect him more now than ever, knowing that he knew and he placated her and he protected me. He didn’t involve me in that discussion or in that world, he didn’t get involved, he protected me, and I appreciate that because I got to have a childhood, I got to, you know, I and I love a gardening because of him, you know. So I’m grateful, and I’m grateful for people that don’t keep saying, Are you alright? What’s going on with you right now? You don’t want you get sick of it as a child.

Colby: 28:02

I look and in my professional life, I I say to people, if you find yourself about to ask a child a question and you think you know what the answer would be, should they give it, don’t ask the question. Say the answer. Say the answer. Because children our children, every time my experience is is when we ask them questions, their experience is what you know, another dumb adult that doesn’t can’t it can’t see, can’t hear, isn’t looking, doesn’t know. But when we when we say the answer, their experience is what finally, someone who who sees me and gets me.

Louise: 28:44

It’s so important that is such a really inspiring and hopeful thing for me to hear because I live with children now who um you know I only we were doing some work the other day, they’re in residential care for three years, and we were uh we we totted up um all the people that this child has had to tell her story to over the last five years, and it was 360 people, 70 care workers, five social workers, managers. Every time she went to AE, it was at least five doctors, nurses, because they never they always go, I want to hear it for myself. It’s like, no, trust, trust the child, therapists, counsellors, teachers, whatever, uh other people. So we came up with the idea that we’re going to make a recording.

Colby: 29:37

Yeah, it’s a good idea.

Kouise: 29:41

Because she I just cannot say it one more time, and then when she refuses to engage and sits at her phone and scrolls and doesn’t engage, they say they get angry with her.

Colby: 29:51

Yeah, yeah. I’ve never insisted that I mean, I’ve been doing working therapeutically. I had a primarily assessment role for the first seven years. Years of my career, and then I gradually did more and more therapy, although I had therapy, psychotherapy clients from the beginning, but 30 years. I’ve never expected a child, I’ve never asked a child to tell their story. Um I think that that’s um re-traumatising. I think I think that children um get more out of a therapeutic encounter from warmth, from understanding, um, from feeling like they’re a person of worth, that they’re good enough, yeah, than yeah, raking over the coals of you know of what’s happened in their life.

Louise: 30:43

And I just think it’s a continuation of abuse when you because to what end are you asking? Because you haven’t read the notes. We got her file, there was just one part of a file, which is 360 pages. This is just for one year of her life, you know, with the rest are coming because she’s soon to be 18. And um, then she asked for another load. Um, and you you when you look at the paperwork that uh uh this is a bit I didn’t say is that as a foster carer and a doctor, you are only ever as good from the beginning as what you have been told and what you know about the child. So when those notes are written, and I I I sat there trying to fight the tears off when I was going through her paperwork just the other evening, because it’s careless, it’s it they don’t even get her name right, they don’t, you know, it is so and they she said, but that didn’t happen, they got that wrong, and you know, so they’re building an identity, a picture of a child that isn’t accurate, which is why I say the truth will always do. If you can’t be the truth and there’s less of it, then hallelujah! Just don’t put stuff in that you’re not sure about and you cannot uh hold to account because they uh it so we’re only ever as good as what we know, and then what what I learned as a foster carer is those referrals, the redactions are you know what is not there is conspicuously loud, and you have to second guess.

Colby: 32:24

Yeah, I think um the word that was coming to me, and I’ve just noticed that I’ve got a nice shadow on my face because the sun is uh uh reflecting off the neighbor’s roof. But um what I um the word that came to me was dignity. Like where is where’s the dignity in for the child in the notes in the the records? I you had me in mind of a young person who complains that every aspect of her life, she’s in a residential placement, but every aspect of her life is documented. Every every what time she got up, what she did for breakfast, rahdy rah. And yeah, and it’s excuse me, Louise, I’m just gonna shut it off. There we go.

Louise: 33:18

There we are. And and that is so important because I when I, you know, was in care, I felt when I ran away at 15 because I just legged it from Oxford to Portsmouth, I got on a train after a horrendous incident of abuse, and I dragged myself three miles to the train station. I got on a train and I was gone. I felt like I’d broken out of prison. And it was liberating, and I worked very hard to make sure that I could earn money not to be anywhere near a social services or a social worker, because by then my trust had gone. So the fact that I’m back in this world much later working with children’s social care, and I see some inspiring social workers, but I read those and I see a lot that I don’t really want to see again. But I see I read the notes with great with great interest. I read I’ve got my own file, and most of it is redactions, and those redactions are not to protect me, they’re to protect themselves, and you diminish more and more and more that you know you you kind of and and and in my um uh file all the way through, I’m hardly mentioned. There’s even a note about you know, a particular thing happened where my adopted mother beaten me so badly, and they went, Oh, I suppose someone better go around and check on Louise, but it’s Friday, I’ve got to go. Can you do it? It was all handwritten before my uh adoption because I was fostered first, because uh so many social workers said, Don’t do it, don’t do it. She must not, this woman must not adopt this child. There are all these handwritten notes saying, please don’t do this from the Guardian Litem from the social workers. And I was still adopted, and I think it was because when you adopt you you you’re one financial burden less for the local authority. And it’s it, and I think what it made me very aware, angry originally, that we matter so little, we matter so little, and you you you see this in decision making now, and and I I am that foster care. I because I do I have this absolute belief that if we put the children’s needs genuinely, genuinely heartfelt, matching with a bit of brain, first, we’ll all agree, and the child will get what they need, but you get all these weird other things going on, careers, politics, you know. Why are children politicized? So you a lot of the the the words around children are lazy, um rude. Uh, I mean, just some of the stuff, and and then you get foster carers, and we have to write logs every week or two weeks. I do two weeks, I do two weeks for any foster carers who are listening. If you write them every week, you’re gonna write about the minutiae. They go up, they clean their teeth, they they who cares? If you write them every three weeks, you forget. So every two weeks for me works out to be about the right, you get you get the right stuff in there, and I always write my logs to my child because it keeps me focused, it keeps me focused on that. I’m not recording their daily activity or then anything negative. What I am doing is I am on the journey with them as long as I can until they read this, and I want them to read that I said, Well, uh, it’s not the child’s name, but say, Sarah, you know, you had a really good day today, and uh, we we got through that bit, you know, with that bit, and I write it in a funny voice, and I use my voice, and I never talk about the the the the whoopsies and the disasters and the and if they abscond, I’ll say, Well, we got your back, that’s great. But I never because they will read it, we never want to be continually reminded of our failures, the failures that were put on us by other people, and I think that that how we write about children is essential. Everybody, doctors, therapists, counselors, you know, teachers, you know, we don’t need to hear the negative, we’re living that negative stuff. I remember it, and I see the children I look after. We you’re living that daily, you don’t need to be reminded, you just need to know that people know that you can you can get through this, and you’ll be great.

Colby: 37:52

Yeah, yeah. And I have a I have a saying that when you get a group of adults in a room, often the first voice that is lost is the child’s voice. And it’s it’s just remarkable how that happens and observing that happening. And I think in our pre-meet, you told me that about putting the photo of the child on the table. Yes, I did it on the table. Yeah.

Louise: 38:16

Yeah, I I and I, you know, you have to be a stage in your life where you really couldn’t give a hoot about what other people think about you. I really don’t care. I generally like I got what I want, got what I need. I don’t need your your validation. But while we were in this meeting, we were it was an online one and they were talking not about the child, they were talking about the child, but not talking about the child and about all the problems it was causing them and the logistics. I just got her photograph and I just whacked it on the screen on camera and went, This is who we’re talking about, and I’m gonna every time you don’t talk about her, I’m gonna put her face up. Yeah, and it and it, you know, and then they were like a little bit shocked, and then they kind of and I said, How can you not? She’s not even here. We’re talking about her, and she’s not here. Do you understand how that feels for her? She knows we’re here, she’s not in the room virtually or the least I can do is remind you who she is, and they and it did change the whole mood of the meeting because suddenly they lightened up. It stopped being about their commissioning and about the the egos and the wars, and I want to further my career because I’ve managed to save 500 pounds this month or whatever, and aren’t I wonderful? Because I really generally don’t care about the adults, I care about the children, and you have when you go in with that attitude at first, it’s like what Gandhi said, didn’t it? When you have when you want something big to happen, when you want to create a change, first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they get angry with you, then you win. And I keep that in my head because I know they go, God, it’s yeah, then they get a bit, you can feel the pursed lips and the and but that’s all about them, not me or the child. All I am doing is reminding them that this human being, this vulnerable, only vulnerable because we have bureaucratically made that child vulnerable on the fact that they were physically and emotionally vulnerable before. So the corporate parent continues the vulnerability, and then they go, and then they get you know, then you get to the conversation with 16 or 18, and you go, right, and off you go then.

Colby: 40:39

Bye. I want to get to you and talk to you a little bit about the Sparte Sisterhood in a in a in a bit, but there’s a couple of other things that uh just something that I want to cover off about what you’ve said so far. There was an e there was a um I refer I refer to this study in my in my writing and um it was published in the mid-1950s under the article titled The Nature of Love. Um and uh Harry Harlow was his name, and he and and he published his study in a very esteemed psychology journal. I think it was in the American Psychologist in 1955, and it was and this is the you may have heard of it, but this is the experiments where they separated infant rhesus monkeys from their mothers um shortly after birth. And what they were they were testing is you know how how important is it to the infant um that they get fed? Um they had mother surrogate, so they have would have a mother surrogate that uh would feed them, but was wrapped in wire, was not warm, was not cuddly, they couldn’t cut it cuddle into it, and it could feed them. But then they they also had a mother surrogate who was wrapped in terry towel and had a a like load behind it, so and it was roughly shaped so that the infant could cling onto it, and it was it was warm, it was soft, and um and and I won’t, I’ll spare you some of the details, but the the long and the short of of it all is how much because they were looking at what are the primary needs of a child, and the primary needs turned out to be as concluded from those studies, were warmth contact to comfort. Whether they feed you or you know, and and I was reflecting on your experience growing, you know, you you I’m sure you were well you may not have been well fed, but but your adoptive.

Louise: 42:44

Well there was a case I had to eat.

Colby: 42:47

Yeah. But um but the kid, yeah, it was that was game changing really for um uh for for thought thinking at that time, that in fact it’s not the fact that the parent feeds and uh the child that is is a primary uh driver for the child orienting to the parent. It’s that they it is that they provide warmth and comfort. And in actual fact, when they frighten these baby monkeys and they had a choice of either going to the mother surrogate that fed them but was just made of wire, or the one that was soft and warm but didn’t feed them, the babies would always go to the soft and warm um uh mother surrogate. So Jessica, you know, I I think about that in terms of the warmth that you undoubtedly experienced with Sean from Sean and um yeah, and and you know, like it’s not it’s not that sophisticated in a way, you know, the the raising and the care of children, it is that um we do provide them with love and comfort and warmth. Yeah, yeah.

Louise: 43:58

And it’s so interesting because every child I’ve looked after, which is over 30 now, um, and and some stay for years and years, is that when they go somewhere else or when they report about back on their residentials or their previous foster carers or whatever. If I can couple that with when when I began fostering and my memories of my own childhood, because I didn’t want to, it was my husband’s idea. I was the most reluctant area you’d find. But you know, I I I absolutely do I love it? I don’t know. You just do it and you don’t think about do I love it or not, because it’s not that kind of uh work. But I wanted to be for my own children, I have two birth children, my stepdaughters when they were young, and all the students because I used to teach in a university. I wanted to be consciously or subconsciously, the the the the very adult that I dreamed I’d had. And what that was was somebody who smiled when they saw me. That simple. Not looked like they were gonna eat me or beat me, but just someone who with warmth, because a child will tell you it’s all in the face, it’s in a split second, and when my children go somewhere, my foster children go somewhere and they refuse to go back, and then the social workers, we’ve spent this money on that, and you have to go, and they’ll say they didn’t make me feel welcome. So it’s all with the initial greet, and every time that you know, and I made sure I worked really hard, and this is why foster care gets mixed up with domestic women’s work, is that even though you know I’m not the greatest and finest baker in the world, but I would half-kill myself to do all my work to make sure that when the children came back from school, the kitchen smelt of of biscuits, and uh the biscuits were warm, and I was there smiling, and just for 10 minutes I’d go, you had a good day, and if they didn’t want to talk, we didn’t, but it was I was always smiling, not like a lunatic, but with utter warmth because I knew that’s what I never that’s all I wanted. It wasn’t about money, it wasn’t about material things, it was about that feeling that you were with an adult that looked at you with kindness in their eyes because it was in their heart, and children read that instantly, you know. And I meet a lot of professionals, and I wouldn’t I wouldn’t want to be left alone with them.

Colby: 46:43

I mean a lot of people in the sector, yeah. The same. I wouldn’t have wouldn’t want my children to to spend time with them.

Louise: 46:51

No, no, so you know, we we don’t, you know, the efficacy that the sense, you know, we don’t pay enough attention as adults to adults, we don’t tell them, you know, when we employ people or when we train people, we don’t say, can you work on your body language, please? Can you work on what your voice sounds like? Can you stop sounding so depressed? Can you can you not make them feel so uncomfortable? Because you will hold a child’s attention, it’s like teachers as well, you know. If you I I have a child with me now that just won’t go to school. Luckily enough, I work from home mostly, so that’s that’s okay. And I never say you’ve got to go to school, because why would you want to go somewhere every day where people treat you badly when you’ve come from a childhood where you were treated badly, and and people don’t understand if they stood there at the door and greeted the young people and said, Hi, so lovely to see you, hi five or whatever. Come on in, it doesn’t matter if you’re two minutes late, rather than you’ve got detention, you’re late, you’re late. Who wants that? So the whole kind of abuse of power, you know. I see it again and again in these stern faces, and children are not stupid by any means. So I think most of the work we do could be helped if we worked on ourselves first.

Colby: 48:32

I I agree, I think that’s a that’s a really fantastic point, and there is a lot of thinking about how we manage the relationship that we bring to the table, how how we manage ourselves when um when we interact with the children. Um look, Louise, there’s lots more that I could talk to you about. But I also I want to cover a couple of other of other things in the time that we have available. I do wonder though, uh, you do you you seem to stick your neck out a little bit on behalf of the children. Who who’s got your back?

Louise: 49:10

Um I’ve got my back. I’ve earned the coverage of my back through through putting my neck out, sticking my neck on, and finding other people that also stick their neck out. And through the years, we have independently and collectively challenged this the the system, the the the the the behaviors, the policies, because unless you you you do create a little bit of disruption and and agitate, nothing will change. And and um I have my back very beautifully covered by uh a number of people. One of them is Sarah Anderson, who uh, for anyone in fostering in the UK or anywhere actually, because I think her her work is pretty global from foster uh foster wiki, which is basically everything you need to know about fostering from law to to minimum standards. Minimum. Why aren’t they maximum standards? Um to quality standards, yeah, quality standards. Why minimum? Why the bare minimum?

Colby: 50:15

Um I’m sure that’s not what min not what Winnicott meant when he talked about good enough parenting.

Louise: 50:21

No, no, exactly. Well, there’s a conversation, isn’t it? You know, oh my goodness. Um, I think I also have my own back because one thing you learn through the care system is resilience, and I’ve learned to to know what to worry about and what not to worry about, and I’m at a stage in life where I’m still standing and I’m still here and I’m still laughing. So I think with age and experience, I I’m more discerning about what I offer my emotional time to. So yeah, a number of things.

Colby: 50:58

Yeah. Um moving on, I just wanted uh you this the books that you’ve written, um I I think people will be very interested to hear more about uh what inspired you to write them and perhaps even a little bit about what what they cover.

Louise: 51:18

Yeah, the thrown away I wrote my own book for thrown away child. That wasn’t my title when you write these books, it was for Simon Schuster. So you write them and then you kind of, you know, things PR and marketing get put in, and they want a nitty-nitty title. And then after I wrote my first book, I was like, I liked writing, but I I wasn’t a writer, and then I had a big gap, and I was thinking, what do I do with my life now? I’ve written a book. So then I started to write about what I know and what I know as a fostering family. Um, and when you are, you know, no one sees your family. It’s a really weird work because you’re kind of divided up and you we hardly see each other as foster carers. Uh, and when we do gather up, we’re always surrounded by social workers who are very keen to keep us on track and not talk about them. So we we we kind of have these fake conversations. But I I wanted to write the books because mainly for my fellow foster carers, because we live in this mad world and we are treated like babysitters, and foster care is intense work. You you have to enjoy learning, you have to be prepared to spend a lot of your time gathering information to tailor it to every child in your home, because there’s no generalization possible for what we do, and I think um I wrote it because we we are treated badly. Uh I think because that some the the the governments all level see what we do as tradition as gendered work, as women’s work, uh, therefore in a lot of people’s minds, including some uh females in in management and so on, we are lesser, we have a lower value. And what amazes me about being a foster carer is that even though I’d worked as an academic, I have lived experience, and I’m reasonably sharp. Um, I’d set up businesses, I’ve already looked after my children, my stepchildren, they’re all alive, you know, it’s all good. I did all that. When you become a foster carer, you doesn’t matter what you bring with you, all your life experience, we’re all treated like we’re just it’s like a processing. You you just get treated like you now, you’ve got to wear a beige cardigan and you don’t have a voice, and now you’re just seen as a domestic person. It’s really weird. And I think when I was uh teaching, I was in a trade union rep because I wanted to know why there was so much bullying going on in my university with academia, full stop, and so I brought with it this kind of uh awareness of uh you know rights, um human rights, workplace rights, you know, whatever. I I brought all that with me, and so that made me really unpopular straight away because I started going, well, what are we then? We’re foster carers, so we you know, we don’t have a contract, we have an agreement, we don’t we don’t get sick pay or pensions, but we’re meant to work like robots 24-7, not not complain. If we do say we’re tired, then you tell us we’ve got compassion fatigue and we’re useless. So you you I really was startled actually when I became a foster carer, I was a bit freaked out, and then I started looking at all my other foster carers, and we come from the most diverse backgrounds, you’ll never meet a more broad demographic than foster carers, but we’re all glued together. Some foster carers naively think that if they you know, if they uh try and impress and befriend the management, they’d be like the favourite child, and we we sit there going, Oh, they’re gonna throw you under the bus, and they do. Um, so I wrote it for foster carers, I wrote it for education because we don’t get very good training. You have a little bit of skills to foster at the start, and then you’re chucked in looking after these little universes with all their issues and all their problems, and all that you don’t know what you’re dealing with because no one ever really tells you what’s going on, and you have to wait for the bureaucracy and all the rest of it. So I wrote it to to share the the more extreme experiences, but the fun as well, you know. And and in my first book, I wasn’t allowed to be funny because it was misery memoir. And I thought that’s not me. I do like a laugh, thank you, Sean. My lovely Irishman, and taught me to laugh. And most things are funny if you look for it. So I started writing the books about our our life. So my husband, my sons, the dogs always in there, um, and the children that come into our lives, into our home, and and all that goes with it, that their families, you know, how they ended up in care, because they don’t just appear from from space and land in care. There’s a whole backstory, there’s intergenerational trauma, there’s poverty, there’s uh all sorts of issues that bring children into care, and and and then the external world that doesn’t know about the care system thinks they’re naughty children. So you kind I uh I wrote it, I never thought I’d get published. I’m on my 20th now. Um, and it’s uh they they go down, but they they’re uh I I I I seem to a lot of Australian people seem to read my books. Thank you very much. But it’s a bit of a it’s just a real story to la isn’t it? It’s love. I I I tell about all the naughty stuff, you know, like when the social workers are coming, we hide all the wine. Oh dear, yeah, and all that stuff because we’re real people, and like sometimes on a Friday after a big week with the children, a bottle of wine will do nicely, thank you very much. But you can’t, you know, you see you live this old, you know, no one ever tells the truth in this world, it’s layers of lies. The parents don’t tell the truth because they’re they’re in the position of failure and threat from children’s social care. The children don’t tell the truth because they’re loyalties to their parents, uh, and they say a lot of what they think people want to hear because they’re used to it. Foster carers don’t tell the truth because they’re terrified of allegation, the social workers don’t tell the truth because they fear that they might lose the foster carer. Yeah, no one is telling the truth. So I thought, wouldn’t it be fun just to tell the truth?

Colby: 57:57

It’s uh it it sounds inspirational.

Louise: 58:01

Um, and a lot of reggae going on as well, because I I’m always listening to reggae in my studio, so that’s quite funny as well.

Colby: 58:09

Yeah, and you’re an artist as well. Yeah, you’re an artist, and uh you obviously paint regularly. I see I see uh some of your offerings on LinkedIn. Yeah, sponsor me LinkedIn. Uh but yes, there is that, and you know, you you mentioned dogs, the dogs again there, and what I the other thing I really wanted to say when I was telling that ghastly story earlier about Harley, Harla, Harlow and his monkeys. So it’s it’s just about how their preference for warmth and contact comfort rather than food or um you know whoever feeds them, and that’s something that dogs are very good at. They’re very good at, and uh, we don’t have a dog at the moment. My dog died a couple of years ago, my most recent dog. Yeah, and you you feel that lack.

Louise: 59:00

Um, it’s horrible. It’s you know, you start throwing bits of food on the floor, don’t you? And you think, well, why am I doing that? Because there’s no dog not that we should feed dogs at the table, but the um the dogs uh are essential for the work that I do at home. Without the dogs, I could not be uh anywhere near, and I don’t think they get praised enough. You know, they know when to go and sit on a lap and they don’t say anything. They got your back. I’ve got your back.

Colby: 59:31

Yeah.

Louise: 59:32

And I had a child who was a prolific, prolific self-harmer, and I used to leave one of my dogs in their room. Because you have to sleep, you know, sleep is the most valuable thing a foster care can have. And the dog used to come in and wake me up when when they were cutting. When it got too bad, when they were getting close to an archery or something. And I used to to go in and my dog would would all they would cry. If a child cries, the dog will let me know and come and get me. And I find the um it sometimes they make me just cry because they’re just so beautiful, the dogs, and they um they reach children in ways that you know I’ve got one at the moment, I’ve got a small dog who’s a Jack Russell Chihuahua, and this particular child carries. I was gonna get them a kind of uh papoose because they carry the dog around, and the dog the the the front legs on their shoulders and they just stare at each other all the time. I think and that it the dog is giving the love but taking away the pain, and you can see this beautiful cycle. So I could not do the work without dogs. No, I want more dogs.

Colby: 1:00:52

I wondered if I’d like dogs again, but um, yeah, at the moment my children are working on that.

Louise: 1:01:00

One of them has yeah, they’re campaign campaigning.

Colby: 1:01:03

Yeah, well, one of them’s got his own dog, so yeah, and we’re we’re grandparents to the dogysitting rights. Um you tell tell us a little bit about Spark Sisterhood. Because I think um I think you you and I are both completely on the same page as uh you know Aberdeen um people in this sector about just just the the awful circumstances that can befall young people post-care.

Louise: 1:01:37

Yeah, it’s the cliff edge, isn’t it? It really is. Um the last thing I needed to do three years ago was set up a charity. But I’d been into a residential home the year before uh as a guest to do some art and do some uh work with the as uh as someone from the care system. And I, you know, I was talking to a group of girls and they’re all about 15, and I’d say, what and I was quite naive, you know, even though I think I I I get it covered, and then I realize I still don’t know how this system works. And I’d be saying, What are you gonna do? Are you going to college? Are you going to this? Are you going to that? They get a little shrug, you know, that teenage shrug. And I go, Oh, okay. And then, you know, life goes on and whatever. And then one by one, after a few months, they were contacting me on social media. And it’d be, hello Louise, how are you? And I go, hi, darling. But my mum bit would go, What’s going on for you? Where are you? And then I found out that there was about eight girls that had been not bonded, but bonded by circumstance and environment, uh, in residential for a few years, who were now all completely separated. And they were living in uh independent living accommodation, which varied from a tent to luxurious, to being in an unregulated home, looked felt very much like it was run by county lines. And if if you haven’t got county lines in Australia, what it is, it’s criminal, criminal gangs trafficking girls and boys using mainly uh uh children to move drugs and it’s slave labor, which is what my books are about. Um, and it’s all it worked through phone lines, so it’s not train lines as my hairdresser thought, it’s uh phone lines, and it’s a sheer exploitation of children and and our uh we haven’t got the the government and the police services do not have the support uh the resources, thank you, previous governments, to to deal with it, so it’s sheer blatant exploitation, and so I was listening to them, and then you know, you do that thing like oh god’s sake. So I remembered that they all liked red velvet cake because I used to take it in, so I got all their postcodes, I put them in my sat nav, and I went to the shop and I got a carrier bag of food and feminine supplies. I just assumed they need them, and on top of each bag I put a uh a red velvet cake, and I drove round to see them all, and it was one of the most heartbreaking things I’ve done because you know, for whatever you say about children in care, they have they have dignity when they need it, and that dignity presents itself as politeness, and that politeness is um a kind of it scares me because it means that they have no, they don’t feel that they have any agency or autonomy, they just silent. And these girls I went to see uh put on uh an insane amount of weight. That was the first thing I noticed, but obviously never said, and I then I’d get to the bottom, they’re too scared to leave their accommodation, they didn’t know how to get on buses because they had been driven everywhere in residential. They were heartbroken because in care, it doesn’t matter how many carers they had, they were told that they were loved, and then when they left, that love disappeared. So now they’d recognize that that love to be paid love for them to say it and totally hollow, and it left them re-traumatized because they’d left they had the rejection of their own families and leaving and having to go into care, and then they so big things that no one thinks about the none of them had really been kept in contact with, they were in isolation, they’d been split up, and this is interesting. Each local authority gave them a different allowance, so some are on £50 a week, which would you know, buy maybe a lunch out for two, and some are on £70 a week. So there’s complete inconsistency. Whilst they were in care, in residential care, they were having their hair done, their nails done, they had clothes allowances, they were going on holidays, you know, everything was blissfully lovely, and then it all stopped. So they didn’t know what to do, but they had developed vape and smoking habits, which were funded by the local uh by the residential home just to keep them quiet, but no one actually so they had developed addictions, so their money went on fags, cigarettes, and vapes before they got fed. And the food they bought was so cheap and nasty that that that’s why they’d put on the weight and they weren’t getting any exercise because they were terrified to go anywhere, they were terrified of the people in the next room. So it was awful. So then I started the charity because I felt that they weren’t going into education. I’d say, why you why are you not going to college? And then when you look at a college timetable, it’s erratic. It’s like, you know, you go in 10 on a Monday, nine on a Tuesday, two on a Wednesday. What they were craving was consistency, what they were craving was routine, what they were craving was validation that they’re okay, not a reminder that they were different. So they couldn’t make friends at college because they had no, they weren’t going to bring them back to their weird accommodation, they didn’t have the money to join in and go to the cinema and go bowling and go out to the pub and do all the normal stuff. They just didn’t know how to do that, and they were probably also being exploited because they, you know, they are so vulnerable because the exploiters of gangs and so on see them and then know they need money and friendship, and they offer another version of family, which is totally corrupt and dangerous. So I set the charity up because of them, and I set it up, and uh first of all, it was a mentorship, and then I and I backed away from that completely because the women that are in business that were quite powerful and I thought could help them were terrifying, and and they would have no relationship. And I knew that they would the girls would turn up because they thought they were awful, and you know, it’s all about those skills that we talked about earlier about welcoming, about non-judgment, and about you know, it’s an art, and not many people have it. So I set up a charity, and I’ve been doing um uh proof of concepts and pilots for nearly uh 18 months now, where we test projects to get the girls’ uh life skills, like teaching them first aid. Uh, we get image consultants in top chefs teaching them about cheap, wonderful food, how to cook. Um, we get uh I’ve got martial arts experts coming in to help them protect themselves both physically, verbally, emotionally. Um, and then we link them up with industry. I’m my main uh drive is to get as many girls into construction, engineering, and tech. That’s where the money is. Because the option, the career options of girls from care are hairdressing, manicurists, care workers for the elderly, or care workers for infants. Now I’m a bit cautious about the care work because they’re still so close to their own trauma, and the others will never get them out of poverty, none of those careers will get them out of the cycle of poverty, and some of them are third generation poverty of unemployment, so it’s working, and I set up a CIC as well to for boys. We have here NEETS, which is not in education, employment, or training, and we’ve got over a million, and it’s not acceptable, it’s not acceptable, and we have uh post-Brexit, we have a lot of really good businesses desperate for workers in the hotel and catering industries in agriculture, and so I’m kind of matching them up, but I have to get the girls and now the boys as well through another project ready to work because you can’t expect employers to lean and bend all the way to meet them and then go into the workplace and disrupt or not know what to do. So we’re teaching them about employment law, we’re teaching them about efficacy, we’re teaching literally how to shake a hand, how to stand straight. We’re doing all the stuff that should have been done if you have a parent that is paying attention. So that’s a charity, it’s growing and growing. I’m just having a round table in London, hopefully with some big, big names, to see how we can do motivational work with them and attract more funding. But yeah, it was an accident like everything I do, Colby. I I don’t mean to, I just end up doing it.

Colby: 1:11:01

I fall into it, yeah.

Louise: 1:11:02

I fall into it.

Colby: 1:11:04

That’s actually been quite a common theme on this podcast. Um generally speaking, the best the best way it’s been put was the the wonderful Peter Wilson, you know, 85 or 86-year-old um uh child and adolescent psychotherapist saying life is a a sequence of serendipities, yeah.

Louise: 1:11:26

Where you just fall into the right, you’re in the right place at the right time to do and uh because it’s so good to hear that because I don’t I always say I don’t have a career, I’ve just been careering around.

Colby: 1:11:40

I don’t know how you get time to do it all, Louise. Where does the time come from? You want a different time scale to the rest of us?

Louise: 1:11:48

I think I’ve to be honest with you, I’ve been working paid work since I was nine, ten. I’ve always had side hustles, I’ve always been pretty focused because I I wanted to get out of poverty, I wanted to get out of care, I wanted to be financially independent because I remember Jermaine Greer, I remember listening on Woman’s hour at the age of like 13. I just caught it saying, Women, to have independence, you must have your own money and that, you know. So it’s like property, what was it, property uh jewelry and something else. I remember thinking I’ve got to get all that because I don’t want to be owned by anyone, I don’t want to ask permission to buy shoes. So I was very determined, and and you can’t make any of this happen from sitting around.

Colby: 1:12:35

Fair enough.

Louise: 1:12:36

No, I knew it was gonna be hard work. Now, if I don’t do anything, I just sleep.

Colby: 1:12:42

Well, maybe that’s the only time you’re not doing something is when you are asleep. Yeah, yeah. Well, look, it’s been wonderful to have you on. It’s been a I think hopefully a really inspiring chat um for and and just a a reminder um to people to remember the humanity of our least fortunate um yeah, uh our least fortunate members of the community. You you and Sarah Anderson have a podcast. Um I I just thought I’d mention that. Um you can you can just as a plug, you can uh say the name of it.

Louise: 1:13:26

Thank you so much. Yes, Sarah Anderson and I are probably the the the most uh uh seasoned campaigners for for foster children and foster carers. You know, we got your backs, and we’ve just launched a podcast called Foster Care Uncovered, the truth from the front line. And we’re getting, you know, some prolific people on there, social work, academics, child uh child psychologists, everything you need about fostering, because without foster carers, there is no fostering, and we want to recruit and look after them.

Colby: 1:14:06

Wonderful. Well, thanks again, Louise, and uh I hope to that we can have another conversation another time, keep in touch.

Louise: 1:14:16

Yeah, and maybe by then you’d have got a dog.

Colby: 1:14:21

Well, uh maybe maybe one of my sons has got um, yeah. Well, maybe maybe we’ve got three dogs, but they they live with my son, so probably more likely to be a company if you think the body is.

Louise: 1:14:41

Thank you so much to have me on Colby, it’s been a delight. Thank you.

Relearning Trust Through Relationships – A Podcast Interview with John Turberville

Join John Turberville as we unpack residential childcare reform, trauma-informed leadership, the role of culture, and what truly supports children to heal and flourish in out-of-home care. Insightful, honest, and deeply relevant for carers, educators and leaders.

Relearning Trust Through Relationships

Residential care is often framed as the last stop, the place you turn to when everything else has failed. This conversation challenges that reflex. John Turberville, CEO of the Mulberry Bush, lays out a humane, evidence-informed case for residential care as a placement of choice for children whose lives have been marked by trauma, rupture and repeated breakdowns. He traces his path from business into therapeutic childcare and explains how mentors, reflective practice and a clear psychodynamic approach shaped a charity that now stretches from its residential school to outreach, consulting and training. The anchor is simple but demanding: relationships first, because repair happens in safe, predictable, attuned relationships that children can actually feel.

A powerful thread is the role of family. Rather than treating the child in isolation, Mulberry Bush commits to working with birth, adoptive and foster families through therapy, peer groups and even residential family weekends. The aim is honest: build capacity, reduce shame, and create real pathways for step-down into stable home life when safe and possible. John describes the reality of term-time and 52?week care, the complexities of holidays, and the constant balance between modelling good care and avoiding competition with families. Alumni stories cut through rhetoric; adults return decades later saying the warmth, structure and belonging they felt taught them the “boundaries of life” and helped them become parents who can love well.

Why group care? Because the difficulties show up in groups—families, classrooms, communities—and that is where the work belongs. For some children, especially those who find family placements overwhelming or triggering, small, therapeutic residential homes provide the containment and relational density needed to rebuild trust. The episode unpacks how solo placements can stabilise acute crises, yet reintegration into group living matters for social learning. We hear of a seven-year-old with over 50 foster breakdowns; expecting another family try would likely entrench shame. In such cases, high-quality residential care across childhood is not failure—it’s a fit.

The conversation also faces the policy and practice headwinds. Staff need emotional resilience, reflective spaces, strong training, and permission to innovate. One-size-fits-all programmes do not work for children who do not fit the mould. Yet regulation can provoke fear that stifles creativity, pushing staff toward screens and paperwork instead of children. John advocates a healthier balance: clear standards for safety, coupled with trust in skilled teams to adapt, experiment and respond to complex need. If we get it right for the most vulnerable, we get it right for everyone.

Finally, the theme that ties it all together is belonging. Whether through a 38?week or 52?week home, a peer group, or a family network, Mulberry Bush builds a felt sense of safety and community. Alumni say the site looks different now, but it feels the same: people who listen deeply, boundaries held with care, and a culture of reflective practice. That aura—accessible, understanding, responsive, attuned—helps children relearn the world as somewhere they can trust, and themselves as people who matter. For systems chasing placement stability and better outcomes, the lesson is clear: invest in relationships, embed family work, back your staff, and make space for creativity to breathe.

You can listen to the full episode here:

You can watch here:

About John:

John is the Chief Executive Officer of The Mulberry Bush, a national charity dedicated to transforming the lives of people affected by trauma in their childhood. He leads the development & delivery of an integrated range of specialist therapeutic and educational services, with a focus on expanding the charity’s range and reach and ensuring the highest standards across all services — guided by its three core values: Collaborative Working, a Psychodynamic Approach, and a Reflective Culture.

John joined The Mulberry Bush in 1994 after a successful career in business in central London, bringing over three decades of experience in therapeutic practice, with an MA in Therapeutic Childcare and a certificate in Family Therapy. Formerly the School Director and Chief Operating Officer, he became CEO to further develop the charity’s ability to link teaching, research, and practice, aiming to deliver the highest quality services and excellent outcomes.

John is Chair of the Community of Communities Advisory Group at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, supporting quality assurance and accreditation for Therapeutic Communities & Therapeutic Child Care settings in the UK and internationally, and is a Therapeutic Communities (TC) specialist, auditing TC prisons.

John is also Trustee of the National Association of Special Schools (NASS) and Governor of a village primary school, reflecting his commitment to both specialist & mainstream leadership.

Related Podcasts:

If you really liked John’s podcast interview, I anticipate you will also like the following:

Richard Rollinson:

Listen here:

Watch here:

John Whitwell:

Listen here:

Watch here:

Transcript:

Colby: 0:00

Hello and welcome to the Secure Star podcast.

John: 0:05

And I’ve been sort of powerfully reminded by various children that no matter the level of difficulty when they were living at home, and sometimes it’s absolutely right that they don’t live at home, but no matter the level of difficulty, there’s still family and there’s still that very important bond that is there. But there is something about modelling the sorts of relationships that can be achieved and those experiences that can be had so that even if it’s not possible to have those at home, the children can develop a sense of what might be possible. That you have to have children on the experience that he had with the staff team at the moment. And from my family therapy experience, I also think there’s something about the intensity of the sort of family dynamic, which can be very challenging. And so expecting all to be able to sort of work through in the intensity of that sort of familial dynamic family relationship, I think is short-sighted really. I do think the children who get close to large tend to be those who are surrounded by the highest levels of anxiety and levels of anxiety at risk. And what we know of these children is that sort of they don’t fit the ball, if you like. A one-size-fits-all program doesn’t work. We need creativity, we need innovation, we need to trust our staff, we need to ensure that they’re trained and properly supported, and then we need to really trust and encourage this to creativity and innovation. We’ve had lots of girls with a lot of many placement breakdowns. So when I was a health manager, we had a girl placed up in two to seven. And actually had over 50 foster placement breakdowns before the aged to seven. And fundamentally, I think it was unrealistic to expect to give something that looked like that another girl. She firmly believed it was her fault, it didn’t, it was unlovable, nobody could really look after her. So I think for her it probably made absolute sense that she continued in residential care. Whereas for other children, you know, the opportunity to support them, to develop an understanding of what’s going on within the family, to work with the family and reintegrate them, I think is also really important, a great opportunity there. Residential care as a placement of choice, I think is really important. Fundamentally, the things that the children today are generally to do with the importance of relationships and the sort of love and care that they experience.

Colby: 3:50

Before we begin the podcast, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land that I come to you from, the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is John Turberville. John is the Chief Executive Officer of the Mulberry Bush, a national charity dedicated to transforming the lives of people affected by trauma in their childhood. He leads the development and delivery of an integrated range of specialist therapeutic and educational services with a focus on expanding the charity’s range and reach and ensuring the highest standards across all services, guided by its three core values a collaborative working, a psychodynamic approach, and a reflective culture. John joined the Moby Bush in 1994 after a successful career in business in central London, bringing over three decades of experience in therapeutic practice with an MA in therapeutic childcare and a certificate in family therapy. Formerly the school director and chief operating officer, he became the CEO to further develop the charity’s ability to link teaching, research, and practice, aiming to deliver the highest quality services and excellent outcomes. John is chair of the Community of Communities Advisory Group at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, supporting quality assurance and accreditation for therapeutic communities and therapeutic childcare settings in the UK and internationally. And is a therapeutic community specialist auditing therapeutic communities prisons. John is also trustee of the National Association of Special Schools and Governor of a Village Primary School, reflecting his commitment to both specialist and mainstream leadership. Welcome, John.

John: 6:24

Thank you. Lovely introduction.

Colby: 6:28

Yeah, well, um, and as I uh generally admit at this point in time, it’ll come it’ll come through lovely and smoothly with the wonders of me being able to go back and edit my little uh uh uh missteps as I was as I was going through the through your bio.

John: 6:47

Yeah, no problem at all. No problem at all.

Colby: 6:50

Now it’s a significant um it’s a significant work history you have, and you’re you’re leading up a um you know a very well-known and dare I say, even somewhat famous organization uh there in the Mulberry Bush. I’m wondering if we might begin by um further to that bio, if you’re just telling us a little bit about your journey to to becoming the CEO of such a highly esteemed organization.

John: 7:25

Yeah, yeah, sure. Thank you. Thanks thanks for reminding me of of of the sort of esteem in which it’s held. I suppose whenever people say that, I always makes me feel slightly sort of intimidated, and I often think of the word of my sort of current role of being sort of stewarding it for a period of time or um, I don’t know, custodian or something like that. But um, yeah, in terms of my journey to CEO, I mean it’s I mean, some of it’s sort of covered in the bio, I suppose, but it’s sort of interesting for me. I think my interest in this sort of field of work really started. Um, it was actually triggered by a documentary I saw once on TV in my teens, which was to do with working with um teenage young offenders and doing sort of outdoor education in in the great outdoors, which was a great passion of mine in my sort of teenage years. Um, and I think from quite an early age, I was quite a sort of fragile child, if you like, and and my parents sort of discouraged me from going straight into this sort of work. They didn’t really think probably that I would be resilient enough, which which I often reflect on. Um, and I ended up going into charter surveying actually in in the West End in London, and I worked for a big sort of professional firm for for five or six years. But in that time, I I worked with a charity in the east end of London called the Stepney Children’s Fund, with who who looked after and worked with similar children who are those placed at the Mulberry Bush, really. And there was a guy who led it called Bob Lavallian, who was just one of these most incredible, sort of inspirational leaders, um, really led from the heart. And um so I was involved in running um camps and weekends um for mostly boys but some girls from East End schools from really, really quite challenging, uh deprived backgrounds. And again, that sort of spiked my passion to do more in this sort of field. And then um I was actually made redundant up in London and ended up thinking, okay, this is a time to make a change in my career, to do really where you know, to follow my passion, I suppose, and my my interest. And I I looked around the country, I visited various sort of schools and settings, and actually ended up at the Mulberry Bush just to come and have a look. I was linked up with Richard Rollinson at the time, who’s who was at that time the the principal of the school. Um, and when I visited, I suppose something just clicked for me. It just felt it felt right. There was something about the place and the sense of community that I intuitively sort of understood. Um, and so I started there as a volunteer uh and then really sort of worked my way through the care side of the organisation. Um, so I became a therapeutic childcare practitioner, then I ran one of the houses for a period of time, probably I don’t know, about six six or seven years. One of the things looking back often, I’m terrible with the dates, so um I often forget the dates, but sort of six or seven years. Um and in that time, that was when I did the MA and Therapeutic Childcare at Reading, which was an amazing course run by um Adrian Ward and Lynn McMahon, and had a reflective group, and it was just inspiring, really. Um so yeah, really enjoyed that course, learnt a huge amount, and realized that sort of my intuitive approach to the work, you know, there were there was a sort of theoretical underpinning and background that it was important to learn. Um after that, I yeah, I I sort of carried on progressing through my role. So I became the head of residential therapy, which was a role at the time, um, down at the school, and was actually I was the first head of residential therapy who wasn’t residential on the site. So prior to me, it was a residential post, and that it felt like we were sort of moving with the times um to move move beyond that, and then became the school director for about 10 years, a post which I really enjoyed. But at that time, the we were really sort of challenged to grow the work of the charity. So at that time it it was the school, and the school working with the children and the families of the children placed at the school, and so the challenge really was to grow the work of the charity, and we developed some other services, um, which I’ll go on maybe to talk about. But um in doing so, we sort of reorganized the leadership structure and set up this post of sort of COO and COO, sorry, chief operating officer and a chief executive officer. And so I became the COO at that time. Um and we really started to develop our sort of range of outreach services, um, working particularly with schools initially and then with social care organizations. And then about three years ago, John Diamond retired, who was the current CEO, and I applied for that that role. Um, and that seemed to make sense in terms of sort of my personal progression through the charity, through the organization. And I still felt and still feel hugely ambitious for the charity. Um, and so the last three years as CEO have really been about sort of developing that role in the work um of the charity more broadly.

Colby: 12:50

You mentioned a couple of people in that, and thank you. Thank you for the the breadth of that that um um that response. You mentioned Richard Rollinson, who I’ve already had uh on the the podcast. Uh was back in the teens, uh might have been about podcast 14, I think, off top of my head. And Adrian Ward, who’s also been ref I haven’t had him on the podcast, but he’s been referenced um by by other people as um having run or delivered a a very um highly thought of um training in therapeutic um therapeutic childcare. Um Richard Rollinson’s a great one for stories. Uh I wonder whether I might spring uh spring on you a uh whether you whether you have a a good little Richard Rollinson story, uh or at least um the impact that he has had on you, your development um uh as a professional and also as a professional within the Mulberry Bush organization.

John: 14:05

Yeah. So my right smile is I’ve got sort of quite a few amusing stories. Maybe I’ll tell you one of those as well.

Colby: 14:11

But in Sunny De Thomas, remember.

John: 14:16

Thank you for reminding me of that. Yeah. Um I I I think I mean Richard was really has been key to my my own sort of progress and development, and that partly was because when I started at the Mulberry Bush, actually it it it was undergoing quite um a radical change, moving from dormitories upstairs and classrooms downstairs, so really everybody living on top of one another, so to speak, um, and building residential houses, and so moving uh as it was termed at the time, move to small group living. Um and because of that sort of program and my experience in surveying up in London, um, and and I suppose I’d like to think maybe something uh about my approach to the work. Richard was really encouraging of me and got me involved quite early on at quite a high level in the organization. I often look back and think that must have felt quite complicated to some, but it really was, it sort of did inspire me. And it I often think of it when I think about newer people coming in and the sort of strengths, knowledge, and the qualities that they bring, and trying to encourage those and sort of capitalise on those. So Rich was absolutely key to me feeling really authorized to have a voice and have a say in the charity, so that felt really, really important. And I think over that period of time there was something about the way that Richard managed that period of change, which was um sort of determined, focused, clear, um, but in some ways gentle as well. And I think that um that feels important at the Mulberry Bush. That I suppose I always have in mind when we’re managing periods of change that you know there are a group of um very sort of vulnerable children placed in that setting, and so we need to manage everything quite really quite carefully. Um, so I think over time, um, what Richard has really the the one phrase that comes to mind actually that I that I raised often in interviews when I’ve had interviews about career progression within the charity has been about think the importance of thinking spaces. Um and I think although Richard um will acknowledge that um he never uses uh uses sort of one word when a hundred would do, um that that uh that actually providing spaces to sort of think and reflect about things is really really important. So I’ve always seen that sort of that’s that’s one of the key um key things for me to remember in all my roles is to provide spaces to think. Um my right smile when you were asking the question was that when I was a Richard’s a singer, I don’t know whether he sang for you on the podcast. Um from listen from thinking back. I don’t think he probably did, but um, and yeah, he loves a story. And when I was the house manager of um I was house manager of Sunset House for a number of years, um Rich Offin used to come in um and he used to always have a song to sing. And one of the songs he used to sing was um it was it was it was called Love Potion Number Nine, which is a very old song, um, and it just used to wind all the kids up, and we used to have to sort of usher him back up back out of the door to just to try and calm the place down again. Um, but yeah, no, an amazing guy, lovely guy. Um, and I still regularly meet with him. He’s on our board of trustees still at the moment, so he still very much is um an important sort of voice for me in terms of the the sort of therapeutic community model and um uh something important about the sort of heritage and legacy that that we carry with us as we continue to develop the the Mulberry Bush.

Colby: 18:03

Yeah, yeah, he he was I I absolutely loved interviewing him and hope to do it do so again soon. Um yeah, a couple of things that he said that have never really um stuck in my mind was um uh was about at the Mulberry Bush children live learn to live with uh with others and with themselves as well. And then the other one was uh and this one came up actually really I was doing some work recently and and it um it reminded me of of what Richard uh said during the podcast, which was about and I’m hoping I’m not gonna butcher it, but it was I can always edit it, of course. Um but it was um if children if children are not on your mind they’ll behave in a way that may uh that puts them in your mind and if they’re neither then they’ll be out of their mind.

John: 19:10

Yeah.

Colby: 19:11

But uh yeah, that really captures so much.

John: 19:17

I think Rich often is able, although he likes lots of words, he he often finds these sort of phrases which do capture something very important. Um and I think one of the things that’s been important to me over the last three years, these three years of CEO, one, and it and it’s again it’s a rich Rollinson phrase, has about been about um the importance of the the equal importance of the the business of treatment and the treatment of the business. Um and and certainly it’s been a key focus for me in the past. I think as a charity, it’s been very focused on on the business of treatment, which of course is you know why it exists and it’s all important, but fundamentally, if you if you don’t get the treatment of the business right, then you’ve got nothing. And so there’s something about that balance over the last three years, which I’ve been trying to ensure as we grow remains a little more equal, um, that we focus on the importance uh of the treatment of the business and make sure the business is solid and sound so that we can deliver high-quality treatment. So, Rich, yeah, he’s he’s great with words. Indeed, he is.

Colby: 20:29

And um while we’re sticking with the the topic of the business, um the Mulberry Bush School, uh, for those who know a little bit of its history, started off um uh as I recall, um back in the 1940s with um Mrs. Mrs. Docker Drysdale and her husband, and she ran something of a nursery school at that at that time. And um and then it’s it’s kind of developed from there. It’s it’s it’s um what is it must be getting on towards 80 odd years that it’s been operating in one form or another. And um and it it it’s more than just a school now. And uh yeah, I’m interested to hear and and how you would um yeah, uh your summary of of um the work that the Mulberry Bush School does in each of its areas of endeavour.

John: 21:31

Yeah, no, sure. Yeah, absolutely. In 1948 was when um when it was founded, um down on the site that’s it’s still on, down in in Stanlake, um, by by Barbadr Drysdale and her husband Stephen. And and in many ways, it’s the work of the school that that remains the source for all we do. So the sort of model of practice developed in the school, the way in which it was thought about and is thought about remains of of key importance to the growth of the charity. Um and really what the the the school still very much runs um many ways as it did, uh, although we’ve sort of adapted and changed over time, modernized, um, and we always look to embrace new thoughts, new ideas, theories, and practice to try and ensure that we remain at the sort of cutting edge of of what’s going on and practices evidence-based. Um, but really it’s been about trying to adapt those that sort of learning, that knowledge, or those sort of golden threads, if you like, um, for different settings. Um, and so back in uh sort of 2011-2012, we we recognized that we needed to try and do more. And actually, the trustees were also sort of challenging us by saying, um, uh if you’re good at what what you do, then you should be reaching more children. You should be trying to do more. Um, and at that time there was a reduction in the behaviour support service for schools in Oxfordshire, and um, so we recruited one of the lead practitioners um for that support service, um, and we set up this thing, it was a sort of working title which stuck at the beginning, which was it was just called Mbox, which just stood for Melbourne Bush, Oxfordshire. Um, and what was interesting was that the the what schools were used to was having a sort of an expert come in and work with an individual so-called sort of problem child. Um, and right from the beginning we decided that’s not what we were going to do. But what we would do is we would go in and we would observe that child in the sort of setting, and then we’d meet with the staff team, and the work would really be about sort of skilling the workforce, so about supporting the workforce in schools to work more effectively with with the the children with the level of challenge. Um and over time that sort of model has grown. So that that still is a sort of key focus. Um, certainly um schools locally across Oxfordshire, we have um quite a team working there, but also um nationally and a little bit internationally. But um so that started off with schools, and at a similarish sort of time, and as I said earlier, I’m not very good with dates, but a similar sort of time we we recognised that the the training we were offering to our own staff, it was the time when government were asking um um staff to complete a level three qualification, and we just felt it was not training our staff to work with the sort of level of complexity um of the children placed at the Mulberry Bush. And so we we accredited a course with the University of the West of England, it’s a level five qualification um in therapeutic at work with children and young people, and we’ve been running that ever since. So I forget the number of the number of the recent cohort, but it’s something like 19th or 20th cohort. Um, so that’s a two-year qualification, and we we um require all of our staff to pass that level five qualification, so that’s a sort of contractual obligation. Um and that has uh led to us also accepting external students onto that course. Um, so that focused us as well as working on schools but working in sort of social care, and we’ve also had um practitioners from fostering organizations placed on that course. And then over the years, that led to the writing of a level four qualification that we’ve been delivering in in one of the local authorities down in the south of the country for the last three or four years now. So that’s ongoing. Um, and then more recently, that was then adapted for youth cust uh a youth custody setting in this country. So it was the first therapeutic secure setting for the country. Um, so we’ve been delivering there. And then more recently, so that’s our sort of outreach. So Mbox morphed into sort of what we called outreach, it became a national teaching school for a period of time when that was a um that was uh something that the govern uh government introduced. Um that became our outreach team, and we have about 11 or 12 staff working in our outreach team at the moment. And then back in 2018, we set up Mulbury Bush Consulting. So we recruited somebody who has been actually the programme manager up at the Royal College of Psychiatrists of the network that I chair, the community communities. Um, and so she has come on board to develop uh organizational consultancy for the Marlbury Bush. Um so our services have really developed over time, and then at a similar time, we took on another site over in Toddington that was uh an archive and study centre called Mulbury Bush Third Space. So the real sort of journey, I suppose, has been developing uh the range and reach of of the charity across schools, social care, um youth custody and prisons and probation. And really the next phase is looking to how we extend those things and um add new uh specialist therapeutic services. So we remain ambitious. It feels like we’re doing an a lot more than we were, but there is a huge amount of need out there, and ultimately we’re a charity um you know here to deliver social purpose and therefore are always looking to meet need. Um yeah.

Colby: 27:30

Yeah. And it’s uh it’s a residential school, um as it at its at its heart. And uh I think in our pre-meet, we we mentioned briefly that I’d uh also had on the podcast Simon Benjamin, who who had worked at the Modern Bush School, and you you um you were yeah undoubtedly there at that time. And I I recall him uh also talking about his role, which was to s um provide outreach to the families while the young people were resident in the school. Um which um coming from you know my jurisdiction that’s I mean we don’t have here in South Australia, we don’t have therapeutic communities like that, where there is one in Victoria, a neighbouring state that I am aware of. Um yeah, but um tell us a little bit of the thinking behind that about having a that outreach to birth family.

John: 28:31

Yeah, sure. So the the work I mean working with families just is uh such central importance really to the work going on down at the school. And and I suppose from when I started, there was a there was there was a connection obviously with families in the school, um, which was important. But in terms of sort of direct work, there was little going on. And what we started to think about at that time was that that so these children were being placed at the Mulderbush um school from all over all over the country, mostly from England, although we have children from from sometimes from Wales and sometimes from Ireland. Um and it felt as if there was a sort of disproportionate burden of responsibility being placed on the shoulders of the the children who were placed to deal with often uh patterns over sometimes over generations of issues from their families. So that just I suppose in my mind felt really unfair, it felt really unfair. And there is a reality that when children are placed, you know, they they carry their family with them, if you like. Um, and if we are to try and support children back into family, it felt clear that that the family also need to engage in some way and find a way of working to perhaps make some changes or to understand some of the challenges a little differently so that they can live together. at home. So the work of the the work with families, it’s now called the therapies and networks team. So for a time we had a a therapy team and a family team if you like. But the work with the families are is of key importance and it’s and it’s not only with birth families but also foster families and adoptive families. So the school has um quite a number of uh adoptive family sort of breakdowns um so children placed from from adoptive breakdowns and actually one of the the most uh well received sort of interventions if you like I’m not sure I like that word particularly but one of one of the things that the team does is to provide sort of peer support groups very often our experience has been that the families feel um quite ashamed I suppose by the situations that they’re in quite isolated um often overly assessed uh sort of assessed to death a bit um and so being alongside their peers and those that have been felt themselves to be in similar situations can feel very very supportive and helpful but over time that that team that the the therapist networks team have uh you know they’re constantly looking at different ways of supporting families so sometimes it might be a sort of couples therapy or it it may be um as one of the one of the groups that the child that the family get involved in we’ve also had residential family weekends where we bring a number of families in um to live alongside one eat one another in the school for a period of time and we work with the parents and the siblings and the children. And there have been a couple of examples where um at the sort of family’s request we’ve put a team into the family home when the child goes home and work with them in their home setting to try and sort of shift something at home. So so I suppose I hope what that sort of gives an image of is is the the the um the the encouragement to innovate I suppose and come up with different ideas and think about well what what could really help there. And I suppose the ambition behind all of this is is about really trying to enact a step down provision so really trying to support children back in to a stable home base.

Colby: 32:19

Yeah and um I think you know we what it what it says to me is that it it is it’s it’s not the case of the children being sent off to the Mulberry Bush school and and residential homes uh in order to be treated and and return to their family be they foster family, adoptive family or or birth family. But rather it recognizes that um treating the child in isolation is not um going to necessarily be the the most effective way of um achieving that outcome as you said of of um successfully reintegrating them back into that uh family environment from which they came. Yeah and um it is a school and schools have semesters and terms and and um where do the where do the children go on term breaks on semester breaks.

John: 33:25

Sure. Yeah so it is a school it’s interesting isn’t it that yeah it is a school you’re absolutely right but often when I’m showing visitors around I often feel like the name slightly misrepresents what it is because it is a school so it has an education area which certainly over here would be what most people would think of as a school so it has classrooms and and and so on. But we all it also has uh residential houses where the children you know live evenings and weekends and and for some of them during the school holidays and then it has the therapist networks team which have a group of therapists um and a um and family network practitioners working with the families um but in terms of the the where the children go so that there are sort of two sides to the service so uh traditionally um the Muller bush was a 38-week provision so a term time only provision children went um home where whatever home is during um the school holidays and then um in between those sort of school holidays every third or fourth weekend there was um a family weekend which felt like an important opportunity for the children to go and reconnect with home but also uh an important opportunity for work between the the school staff and the family um back in 2018 we we moved from being just 38 week to also having a 52 week service so it has always been the case that there were a number of children who were referred who weren’t able to be placed because they didn’t have a family to return to or well I maybe they didn’t have a family to return to or they weren’t allowed to return to their family. There are a whole sort of host of individual circumstances there. And so back in 2018 we set up our first 52 week house and in fact last year um we opened our second 52 week house. So we now have three 38 week houses which look after up to six children each and then two 52 week houses similarly which look up look after up to to six children. So um so the children so that introduces a different complexity I suppose to to the way that the setting runs um the 38 week children have they will return maybe to a foster family to their adoptive family or some to their birth family on those weekends home or school holidays. And for the 52 week children um some of them do have families that um that visit them or that they visit and and again going back to the sort of step down model for for for those children in the 52 week service our ambition still would be to um support them back into into family if that is possible. And that may be through our 38 week service or it may be back into family. But there’s certainly there’s a whole area of work going on trying to support that sort of step down model.

Colby: 36:28

It’s interesting it it was something that is entirely foreign to me so I never even thought to ask so um I’ve been aware of the Cotswold community for you know a number of years I talk regularly to Patrick Tomlinson who’s something of a silent partner in uh in this podcast. The notion of children going home from a however you think of it it’s a therapy it’s a residential uh care service going home to uh a family based setting is just completely foreign to me in in my jurisdiction here in Australia. So I when I when I interviewed John Whitwell on the on the podcast early on um he referred to the the the boys at the Cotswold community going home um to to their families um during um well week some weekends and and also term breaks holl school holidays and um and that there were as you say there’s some complexities around that. Suffice to say I never really thought of the question until I’d spoken to John Whitwell but I’m inspired by the idea that that children can go back to a place where relationships have been ruptured ruptured or where there’s been uh concerns about um the the level of care that they uh are experiencing um that that that that could happen with a view to um amongst other things support as you say that that set step down to to a success to I guess a safe and successful um replacement or return to that family environment.

John: 38:23

Yeah I mean I I suppose I think I’m absolutely not saying that it’s right or proper in all circumstances or all cases but but one of the things that I think we often forget and I’ve been sort of powerfully reminded by various children um that no matter the level of difficulty um when they were living at home and sometimes it’s absolutely right that they don’t live at home um but no matter the level of difficulty there’s there’s still family and um and there’s still that very important bond that is there. And so for many of many of the ex-pupils who come back um have have found ways to you know if if they haven’t in their sort of younger lives reconnected with family or or or been back with family they have found ways to connect and and for many of them they’re continuing their sort of journey to try and understand what happened and and why what happened happened. And I think that’s really important. I I always remember a um um a child I key worked talking to me who who um for me it was an important part of my learning really and because of what happened to this this young person um I really sort of vilified the parents and um I remember this this young person saying to me one time after um a few years um we were sitting playing a game I think playing a game of connect four or something um and they just said um why why does nobody ever ask me whether I love my dad um and I can remember I can remember my heart sort of sinking really and thinking you know you know we’ve missed something really important here. You know no matter all of these awful things that have happened um actually there’s still a love there. And this this young person wanted to talk about the good times they’d had together and I don’t know dog walks and going to the park and um in equal measure you know and so I think it it it’s really important that we remember the the importance of of family no matter the the those sort of earlier very difficult circumstances.

Colby: 40:54

Absolutely and I I this is a real passion project of mine I would say that all therapeutic endeavor is um enhanced by uh and successful outcomes are um made more likely in circumstances where the children where where we’ve been able to achieve some level of relational repair at least and in connection with birth family. If you think about it if the pri if the children remain uh if their relationships with their primary attachment figures remained remain fragmented, damaged disordered however you want to talk about it, then um how why would they ever you know put themselves out there again i to to subsequent carers and and we we operate under a misapprehension I think in child protection jurisdictions in at least in the Western world that I’m aware of that that all you know these these terrible things have happened in in the family of origin. But the the main therapeutic endeavor needs to be to create a new family or provide a new family for them where we can provide we can develop a new template for them. And and I just think that that’s misguided. It’s not particularly understanding of the task that foster parents and other other adults who come in um to the frame to work with these children are faced with the the the mere fact that um these children find it really hard to trust again when trust has been lost or broken and the like so yeah so you can you maybe you’re starting to imagine a little bit my enthusiasm when I heard things like you know they go home you know like they get hopefully they go home for Christmas you know like these important types of um um periods and events I I think it’s really important and and uh I I suppose just hearing you you you say those things made me think about some of the things the ex-pupils say when they come back but uh which which I can say a bit about but also it made me think about this I think one of the real challenges in working in residential provision is um where the and where there is a family is uh this sort of competitive um element which can come in and sort of who are the better family really or you you can get you can get into sort of competing or providing something that’s that’s um that within an organization like the Mulderish queue can afford and home can’t afford so you so you so you actually sort of work against that sort of reintegration um but there is something about modeling the sorts of relationships that can be achieved and and those experiences that can be had so that even if it’s not possible to have those at home the children can develop a sense of what what might be possible.

John: 44:16

And it makes me think of um an ex-pupil so so one of the fantastic things about um our ex-pupils we we have an ex-pupil’s uh network and an ex-pupils advisory group and each year we have an ex-pupils open day um and increasing they’re becoming more and more involved and one of our ex-pupils um well over this last year we’ve had three different ex-pupils who’ve joined us on this sort of stage at events presenting and one of the ex-pupils who was actually in in my house um back in sunset back in the day um was presenting um alongside our outreach team to a group of a hundred um educators um school leaders uh teachers and so on and what she wanted to say about her experience of the Mulberry bush so she’s now in her 30s she has two children she’s married and what she wanted to say was for for her so she was at the school when she was um between about eight and eleven something like that eight um the age of eight and eleven she wanted to to to be very clear that the relationships that she experienced at the Mulberry bush she believes are the only reason um that she is today able to be a mother and she very much models the the sorts of care and can love care and concern um that she has for her children um on the experiences she had with uh the staff team um at the Marbury bush and of course those sorts of things are enormously powerful um you know that and so what you’re saying is absolutely right really that there is something of central importance of of modelling that you know what might be possible for the children um while they’re placed at the mulberry bush modeling those sorts of experiences trying to be conscious and aware of not competing with family um but trying to to nurture sort of meaningful relationships and and at the guts of I suppose all of the work that we do it it is all about sort of relational practice you know the the the the central importance of meaningful sort of interdependent type relationships and the the opportunity to to build those with with people who are deeply mistrustful um for right you know often rightly so it’s interesting that one of the one of the sort of we’ve we’ve got some sort of short videos that were um were taken of ex-pupils on the ex-pupils open day and one of the the children and that’s on YouTube so I’ll I will use his name so Chris um he talks about the impact of the Mulderish on him um it’s a really reflective piece which is really fascinating and I think there’s something of the qualities of the the environment that comes through often in in how how the um ex-pupils present themselves but he talks about it being a safe environment um and the importance of it being safe um and he talked about how uh sort of dysfunctional his home life was um and what he reflects on are the the yeah his deep mistrust in all those around him and he and he and he says within the video that it took him a couple of years to realize um that the stop at the Mulberry bush weren’t just trying to make things worse. And he started to he he’s he talks about it changing his view of people um of children of adults and of the world around him and so there’s something of that sort of process of change. So yeah he often springs to mind but I think it’s a common feature of the children they are um deeply mistrustful because they do feel that they have um been let down I suppose um in the past um in their formative years and so building trust and trusting relationships is is hard I think it is really hard in some instances um the the parents um have had extremely challenging lives themselves and in many ways were mulberry bush children themselves and there’s something about the sort of the the cycles over generations that the families have had to contend with um really difficult challenging sort of stuff and and wanting some help to try and sort of interrupt that sort of cycle um and establish change. I think for others I struggle to think of a circumstance where they don’t want the best or they aren’t trying to give of their best I suppose and um and very often um whatever has been done to try and help hasn’t helped and people are feeling let down by um the the authorities by the professionals and so the they come to us often with a mistrust I think of are we just another bunch of people who are who are going to sort of judge them let them down. And so it really is important to to to try and help them feel a valued part of the team you know you know that they ultimately will almost always know the children better than anybody else. And so it’s very important that we we talk to them we listen to them and I suppose the one of the the a parent comes to mind actually as I’m as I’m saying that to you who who I worked with who was feeling very challenged by something that we were talking about in the school in relation to to the home life was quite upset about it and I end up going out to visit to try and sort of mediate a little bit between the work that the the school were doing at the time this was some years ago and the family and the and the child. And I remember talking to to the this um mother um and saying look we might not be right either you know you may be right we might be wrong but there’s something about holding onto this sort of notion well could this be true you know just just the sense of there’s a possibility that that this different way of thinking about it might be true. And I think holding um holding a space for that thought can allow different things to emerge and different ideas to to to move forward. So um I suppose I think that’s often the situation is is trying to to to get alongside parents to build um trust um that we’re not here to judge we are here to try and help the notion of you know could this be true? Is there a different way of thinking about this feels yeah just feels really important. And you know as a parent myself parenting is difficult. It’s not always easy and well it’s rarely easy really I would say probably I think parenting is difficult.

Colby: 51:13

Yeah I think what you talk about there in terms of people’s feedback the particularly the young people who have um been through the Mauberry bush and their feedback and I think is really powerful and in some ways um hopefully challenges the the narrative that residential care settings are really the option of last resort for um for children and young people who can’t safely be cared for at home wherever home may be or that you know that um relationships have broken down to the point where they can’t be at home for a period of time.

John: 51:57

And I’m um I’m wondering what your thoughts are given your your experience but also the the feedback of young people who have been through the Mulberry Bush program around this idea of of residential homes being being you know across the gamut of care options the the one of last resort what we often think about when we think about the children placed at the school and I think it is it’s very similar for many of the the people that we work with in schools and social care settings, prisons from promotion and um and youth custody is um generally those children young people are struggling to function in a group so and so whether that’s a school group or a family group um and so part of the importance for me of residential care places like the Mulberry Bush is is if that’s where the problems are then that’s where the work is so the work is in groups and and ultimately in in the wider world um we all have to function in groups you know in in out in the community and so I think that’s really really important and I suppose from my family therapy experience I also think there’s something about the the intensity of the sort of family dynamic which can be very challenging and um so putting so expecting all to be able to sort of work through in the intensity of that sort of family familial dynamic family relationship um I think is is short-sighted really and so for me that the role of um of residential care is is sort of cuts cuts through that really so you’re in a group setting where there’s a number of staff you you it sort of dissipates slightly the intensity of that family dynamic but you you have an opportunity to recreate it in in pockets or or to work at it rather than it just being ever present in the daily life of the house. Certainly in the UK there is a there’s been a real move to to much smaller numbers of children placements and even solo placements and fundamentally I mean I think there are a small number of children who at times of crisis probably need that um you know solo placement to sort of stabilize but I do firmly believe that that a reintegration back into some sort of group setting feels really really important you know ultimately I it is where the work is and um and so I absolutely believe it’s got a central role to play in supporting um certainly those children who’ve really had a rough experience in family or really cannot struggle with that family dynamic. And maybe you know I think it has a role a play to play for them throughout their childhoods. You know I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong at all with good quality residential provision for some children throughout their childhood and certainly we’ve had lots of children placed at the mulberry bush for whom there have been too many placement breakdowns. So when I was um a house manager we had a a girl placed with us when she was seven um and she’d had over 50 foster placement breakdowns before the age of seven um and fundamentally I I think it was unrealistic to expect her to to give something that looked like that another go. I just don’t see why you know it will have been so entrenched that she was um you know she firmly believed it was her fault that these things you know she was unloved unlovable nobody could really look after her um so I think for her it probably made absolute sense that she continued in residential care whereas for other children you know the opportunity to support them to to develop an understanding of what’s going on uh within the family to work with family and reintegrate them um I think is is also really important there’s a great opportunity there so I think um residential care as a placement of choice I think is really important um really important I suppose the other thing that comes to mind in this country there’s a big there’s often a big thing about um the residential care should be within a certain sort of geographical radius of family um I understand the argument um but my experience in the mulberry bush has been it depends how the family are looking to engage and an example I often give is at one time we had a family who um a child placed of a family who whose family was about um six or seven miles away from from here um and then we also had a child placed whose family was about 250 miles away from here and at that time the family who was very local then they might as well have been on the other side of the world um in terms of their engagement and their willingness to sort of work with us the family that were 250 miles away if there was an issue and we wanted them to come down or I wanted them to they would they were there within moments. And so it is about the sort of emotional engagement and connection with the work rather than geographical distance also. So I think yeah I I I think we misunderstand that often in this country.

Colby: 57:30

But yeah certainly the role of residential provision I think is is of central importance as a part of um the picture I couldn’t agree more if I could summarize a couple of the really key points that you made one which one of which is that when children have been hurt in and these are my words now but but um when children have been hurt in relationships with with adults from on whom they depend um yes they it would be um in their interests at some point for for them to have a different experience of uh of um care from an adult to to that which they’ve had and if they can have that different experience with the their their parent if they if indeed it’s a parent if they we can change the dynamic of that relationship then that I think is an even better outcome as well though they may not be able to safely go back and live with their parents. The reality is that there is there is a significant not insignificant group of our children who find going into a family placement really confronting triggering in fact they’re not ready to go into a family environment and so residential care as an early placement option as a as a place to as Richard says you know help them to uh live with each other and with themselves in a way and you went and you also talked about you know providing examples of um again I’m gonna use my words a bit but examples of what a safe and nurturing child to adult adult to child relationship feels like without that being um kind of in the child’s face you know 24 hours a day seven days a week that so there there there’s that um which I I think is uh incredibly important. So I do think of residential care uh as something you know something that should be tried earlier rat rather than later. If you if you really understand the children that we’re talking about and the experiences that they’ve had. And I think part of and while you’re on the topic you’re on the topic or on the run of of trying to understand the children together better, then I think our authorities need to turn their mind to what what is it, what harm is being done with this blind allegiance to the idea that that a family-based placement is always and in all circumstances the superior option such that you have these children who just go through placement breakdown after placement breakdown after placement breakdown. And the harm that is done to children in those circumstances is incredible. And you know I’m I’m in my day job I’m a clinician. I’ve worked in this space for 30 years and you know and it’s horrifying to hear of people who have had young people who’ve had more than 50. I have a young person that I see who’s more than 50 but they’re towards the end of their care journey not seven years of age. So which children do you think really benefit from a residential care placement like what is uh offered at the Mulberry bush but also more generally um other therapeutic communities in the UK?

John: 1:01:20

Yeah yeah so so I think um certainly the children that come to the mulberry bush tend to be those that um create the sort of highest levels of of anxiety and risk in their local authorities. So I do think we’re at we’re at a point at the moment really and and it does relate to cost there’s no escaping the fact that it’s it’s a high you know it’s a high cost option for local authorities. But that yeah the children who are placed are those that create the sort of high le highest levels of anxiety and risk um to those around them and very often it’s those for whom all other options have failed. And I think that’s one of the real challenges in this country is um it it feels wrong that everything else has has to have failed before you get placed. But I understand the sort of cost-based reality of that. So the children who come to the Mulberry bush yeah sort of highly complex lives that have surrounded them and they are children who as I sort of said earlier had have struggled to function in a group setting either in in education or in social care. But it’s interesting that I’ve been involved in a couple of groups more recently looking with the Department for Education but also up at the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory who’ve done some research on on children who find themselves on deprivation of liberty orders. So those are children for whom it’s felt residential care can’t look after them, but we have a full youth secure estate. And part of the research was around looking at the care principles for these children and do they have different needs from those within residential care. And in the most recent group that I was talking really what we were talking about was we don’t necessarily believe that they do but it is something about the capacity of those around them to manage the sort of risk and anxiety that’s that that’s created by the complex lives in which they live and and so it is more to do with the need for adult staff sorry staff support and staff training rather than different care needs. And fundamentally also then the regulator has a role there. And when you were asking the question I was thinking about a a child we had recently so so I I do think the children who get placed at Arborish tend to be those who who are surrounded by the highest levels of anxiety of levels of anxiety and risk.

Colby: 1:04:05

I wouldn’t want listeners to feel that or or or think sorry that the children who you are serving there at the Mulberry bush are different to um in a in the sense of being lower risk lower concern you know especially in consideration of some of the things I’ve mentioned like going home for the holidays you know being going home at Christmas that sort of thing I think it’s I think it speaks volumes that you these are children about whom there is significant concern significant worry and yet you pro you can continue to provide this service yeah in in in the pursuit of their recovery it’s remarkable but sorry I I broke into you where you were talk you’re talking really about you started to talk about staff attributes and and the role of the regulator as well yeah so so I mean I I think in terms of staff capac staff’s sort of emotional resilience and capacity to work with um risk and anxiety is is really vital um and also for those sorts of children at those highest levels of of um who present the who are surrounded by the most complex lives if you like and present um the highest levels of sort of risk and anxiety this there’s it’s really important that staff maintain a a capacity to to feel able to sort of to innovate to to to do things differently you know it’s so often for the children who are placed um many people have tried the same things over and over again and wondered why nothing has changed.

John: 1:05:48

And so that I think there is a role for the regulator in terms of supporting innovation in the sector you know the the I mean it it’s it’s interesting that sort of the whole issue of sort of standards um regulation and standards you know standards do lead to standardization and and what we know of these children is a sort of um they don’t fit the mold if you like a one size fits all um program doesn’t uh doesn’t work um and certainly one of the groups that I was talking at up in London I was referring to a child who was placed with us um who was with us for a couple of years um very challenging young person um and um at one of the inspection experiences the there was real focus on this individual and what was going on around them the work that we were doing the sort of the ways in which we were trying to innovate um and it was quite there was a high level of scrutiny really and it felt very uncomfortable um and um I won’t go into all of the details of that but it was it was a really difficult time um the child then left um when they were due to leave at the end of their placement um about four or five months later and in the following nine months this this young person um had um nine placement breakdowns and ended up in a secure unit um and I was saying at the group up in London there’s a key example here of of somebody who we need providers to be really sort of creative and innovative um in finding ways of connecting and looking after containing um developing meaningful relationships with with with the the sort of young person that’s so deeply mistrustful and and um and challenging you know and and I think we’re getting that wrong you know I I do think things are starting to get better um there’s a sort of change in the narrative around it at the moment and and just the fact that we’re having these conversations in these sort of high level groups um gives me some hope and faith that things are sort of moving forward and changing. But we do yeah we need creativity we need innovation we need to trust our staff um we need to ensure that they’re trained and properly supportive and then we need to sort of really trust um that they the and encourage this sort of yeah creativity and innovation.

Colby: 1:08:16

Yeah and I I people who know me and know my career well know that um in until the middle of last year and for the previous 14 and a half years I was very involved in the health practitioner regulation scheme here in Australia and um in with a particular focus on the psychology um side of things and rose up to chair and deputy chair roles for for for for Australia in in the regulation of the psychology profession. When I talk what we what we know is that people practitioners in in many if not most or or indeed if not all endeavors find regulation and indeed regulators anxiety evoking. And I when I talk to people in the UK and they talk about Ofsted they they’re and these are providers you know at the level of the the the you know the managing director or the CEO they’re they’re truly um terrified of of an off an offstead inspection and in particular one that that finds that their their uh standards are low. And um and I the problem we have and I think this is perhaps a little bit related to your concern as well is that if we have that our children children in this space do require us to be flexible and innovative and and reactive responsive yeah and um anxiety is the enemy of exploration. Anxiety is the enemy of innovation. So it’s almost like a case of no good deed goes unpunished. You know we need regulation regul regulation is about keeping the the the the public safe in this case you know keeping vulnerable children’s safe um but at what at the if it’s at the expense of innovation if it’s a if it’s at the expense expense of justified and justifiable justifiable risk taking trying something new then then unf yeah unfortunately um it’s it’s one of those unintended consequences but a consequence nonetheless that actually can have a negative outcome for the services that we’re trying to deliver.

John: 1:10:51

Yeah. Yeah no I think that’s right. I mean the the the phrase that comes to mind is that I think the sector for quite a long time felt like the uh I remember seeing at a conference there’s the phrase that the flogging will continue until morale improves sort of and I think and I think that you know there is a sort of there has been a sense of that and um I suppose two things sprung to mind. I think you’re absolutely right I think anxiety and the sort of fear uh of inspection is deeply unhelpful and um and one of the things that um our research has has sort of shown um that that’s taken place at the charity has been about the the the sense of shame for children the sort of children and families that come into our services or or that we work with in the schools and all these other settings there is a sort of um endemic sort of sense of shame for them in the situations in which they find themselves. And I do wonder what um there’s something about the sort of the way in which sort of regulation and inspection um is has been managed which is about sort of shame the shaming and the sort of role of sort of shame in the sector or shaming into improving and I and I’m not convinced that that’s helpful. And certainly within the staff team we would be conscious all the time of of not getting caught up in in um shaming um shaming staff members shaming families shaming children um we we really need to find a way forward from that and I suppose the other thing that I I think needs tackling um somehow is the whole notion that that if it’s written down then children are safer. And one of the real worries and and the challenges we have is that the increasing amounts of sort of bureaucracy that surround um meeting the demands of regulation and inspection draws staff away from children and um to sit in front of laptops. And that’s difficult because you know I I absolutely agree and accept there’s a really important role for regulation. You know we need to know that children are safe and I absolutely accept the importance of that and the role that the regulator has for the government ultimately in in establishing safety of children. But somehow we do need to um we we need to allow creativity and the and the phrase I think it was at a similar conference to that other comment but there was a phrase that came up that somebody said which I I do wonder whether it’s true which is that you can regulate to to get inadequate services to good um but to allow to to enable um outstanding practice you have to set creativity free. And I and I like that sort of notion that somehow yeah we need to know people are safe we need to train people properly and then we need to to really yes allow creative practitioners to engage with children and and to find um yeah to to set that creativity free and I and I think that’s I think that is true. Yeah we have a there was a saying that was used here but in indeed including by our um national chair of the psychology board of Australia uh that lot about talking about light touch regulation regulation needs to be there but it it can’t be getting in the way of of the work that we do I I was just gonna say I do think that the the the most recent narrative from the current um HTMCR Martin Oliver around if we get it right for the most vulnerable we get it right for everybody then you know I I do think that’s true. I think it’s a helpful helpful narrative.

Colby: 1:14:44

Yeah um there’s so much I can talk to you about John and uh um your day is only beginning mine’s mine’s closer to the end um couple of things that I wondered we you’ve talked a little bit about what the children um say about their experience of the mulberry bush I’m wondering if there’s just any any other message you would like to share around that around what your your your alumni group or or uh other um returning um adults who’ve who’ve had experience of the mulberry bush are saying and um uh you’ve also talked about what you know the the the message that you would like to put out there to the world that the mulberry bush would like to put out there and I I’m just wondering if we’ve kind of bring it to a close around either one or other or both of those those two things what the children say and and the voice that that you want the mulberry bush to be projecting to the world yeah that’s a big question um I suppose it it makes me think about um I think fundamentally the the things that the the children say um it are generally to do with the importance of relationships and the sort of love and care that they experienced and um it makes me think that the so we we had a few years ago um a lady called Sally Finch um came back to visit ex-pupil from 1948 to 1951 so right at the beginning now lives in in Christchurch New Zealand um and one of the things that she said and and a number of others have said the same thing when they’ve they’ve come back to visit the school has said this place is just completely different but it’s exactly the same and so there’s something about that even though she didn’t recognize almost anything of the buildings on the site that what resonated for her was the sort of experience of how people related to her the sort of warmth that sort of sense of community um the importance of relationships the love care and concern that that she she witnessed and and I think that’s what the the the ex-pupils would often refer to um even if their experience was tough at the time and one of them you know the there’s again there’s a video um on YouTube uh uh of the ex-pupils open day when one of the ex-pupils it’s her first visit back and she talks about it having been tough but it teaching her the sort of boundaries of life is the is the phrase that she uses um and and says that it helped her a lot so there is something about the you know on the is interesting on the on the foundation degree there’s a phrase that we’ve often talked about which is the phrase sort of growing up is tough at the mulberry bush and that’s whether you’re a child whether you’re a member of staff whether you’re the CEO there’s still a sort of you’re still learning you’re still there’s a sort of growing up process which which is difficult. And I suppose our the message for the world if you like I I I the single most important thing I think is um the importance of relationships and all of the work that we do is really about um that sort of relational practice and the importance and the the the therapeutic with a small t if you like importance of um relationships getting alongside one another understanding um really listening not just hearing sort of really really listening listening and hearing what people are saying to us um and um yes developing relationships with with people in that sense of community and I think what emerges from that um and is so clear um within the ex-pupils comments is um that sense of belonging that that they then experience and um having ex-pupils come back and visit there is still that sort of sense of belonging to that wider mulberbush community and I and I think that’s something that that can be can be developed um in other organizations in other communities in other settings um in other countries um so yes that’s you know developing that sense of belonging is of central importance really um and I and I think I suppose what emerges from that is a confidence um which I one of the things I love to read when I read this sort of ex-pupil’s comments that’s that that sense of confidence which I think leads to that you know a sense of agency in the world so um the the the young people now adults um have a sense of confidence in their own agency in um making decisions about the world in which they then inhabit yeah yeah I have a I have a little acronym that I use um it’s part it’s just because I’m a little bit mischievous um I was I was lying in bed one Saturday morning and I was because I love acronyms and I was thinking of um um what would be a good acronym for the the milieu of a place you know that that felt quality of a place which I think you know you’re referencing and and it as it turns out there’s there’s a really obvious one which is aura so the milieu is also the aura of the place the aura is the felt quality of a place or a person you know it’s aura and uh aura stands for for me in my writing um being accessible understanding responsive and attuned so uh I love to talk about auras maybe that can be what happens in the different uh conversation between us but uh just because it’s a it’s a little bit mischievous uh a psychologist of my stature talking about auras but uh anyway it’s been it’s been a fantastic conversation John I you know I feel like we probably could have uh gone on for another hour or so um but thank you very much for agreeing to be part of the podcast.

John: 1:21:22

Pleasure well thank you very much lovely lovely talk with you.

Building Trauma-Responsive Care – A podcast interview with Richard Cross

What if “care for the carers” is the real key to healing children? Richard Cross unpacks attachment, containment, and why residential care isn’t always a last resort.

Why caring for carers is the first step to healing children

The conversation with Richard Cross traces a clear through-line from first principles of attachment to the practical, daily realities of caring for children who have lived through repeated adversity. The central idea is disarmingly simple: care for the carers as deliberately as you intend to care for the children. When organisations build genuine containment for staff—through reflective supervision, stable leadership, and shared language—adults think more clearly, tolerate uncertainty longer, and respond more humanely. This is not abstract. It shows up in fewer reactive decisions, more patient attunement, and a culture where difficult feelings are metabolised rather than acted out. Richard’s pathway is parallel by design: a staff pathway that mirrors what we want adults to offer children—holding, reflection, and growth—so that therapeutic care becomes a living experience rather than a manualised aspiration.

This lens also reframes how we choose care environments. There’s a prevalent belief that family is always best, and that residential care is an option of last resort. Richard challenges this. For some children—especially those phobic of family life due to traumatic family histories—early, high-quality residential care is the right first option. It offers increased containment, predictable routines, consistent relational responses, and an integrated team that can share the emotional load without burning out a single carer. Used early and well, residential care is not a cul-de-sac. It can be a structured bridge that shortens the overall care journey, stabilises education, restores trust, and improves placement matching into foster care when the child is ready. The cost argument fades when we look beyond a single year and count the human and financial toll of repeated breakdowns.

Translating theory into practice depends on leadership. Trauma-informed care is not a leaflet or a one-off training day; it is a culture choice repeated under stress. Richard starts with directors and senior managers, setting an honest expectation of a long journey. Leaders must protect time for reflection, model transparent communication, and respond to crises without abandoning the principles that keep the system humane. Shared language is the glue—terms like containment, emotional holding, thinking-not-acting, and amber flag meetings give teams a way to notice patterns, signal risk, and convene quickly to think together. Staff need spaces to explore triggers, write safety plans for themselves, and acknowledge that not knowing is often the wisest starting point. Tolerating uncertainty creates room for curiosity about what a child’s behaviour is communicating, rather than rushing into control strategies that escalate distress.

Integration across services magnifies healing. When residential homes, foster services, schools, and clinical teams all use the same concepts and responses, children experience adults as consistent and coordinated. Anxiety drops when staff don’t contradict each other, and when ideas flow freely across settings. Practical structures make this real: cross-service supervision, shared formulations, and “amber flag” meetings anyone can call when pressure rises. These routines stop fragmentation before it sets in and keep the system relational. The message to commissioners is equally clear: bring psychologists into placement planning, invest earlier rather than later, and track outcomes credibly so trust grows. Evidence from practice shows that the right residential intervention can reduce total time in high-intensity care, improve education continuity, and increase the success of subsequent family placements.

Mentorship underpins all of it. Richard’s story threads through good governors, supervisors, and collaborators—people who stood at his shoulder while he learned to hold complexity without panic. That’s the same stance we need for staff stepping into tough roles, and for children learning that adults can be steady, honest, and kind. The north star remains attachment: safety, proximity, and reliable responses that let minds turn back on. When organisations embody that for staff, staff can embody it for children. That is how cultures change, how placement breakdowns slow, and how healing becomes less about slogans and more about daily practice that holds firm when it matters most.

Listen here:

Watch here:


About Richard:

Richard is a UK Registered Psychotherapist and Child Psychotherapist.

His career for over 30 years has focused on working with relational approaches in areas associated with attachment, trauma and dissociation.

Richard’s early career was focused on developing relationally based treatments within correctional environments to reduce recidivism, as well as managing democratic prison-based Therapeutic Communities for high-risk adult life-sentenced offenders (HMP Dovegate, England).

Richard collaborated with Sandra Bloom to introduce the Sanctuary Model to the UK in 2004.

Since then, Richard has developed an interest in trauma-responsive models and continued his focus on Therapeutic Communities, exploring how to bring these aspects to life in organisational cultures. One example is a multi-component approach called ATIC (Attachment and Trauma-Informed Care), which is now harnessed across multiple residential child care homes. 

Richard is actively involved in research and innovation, and he also provides consultancy services to organisations, and training to qualified mental health professionals. 

Richard is Director of Clinical Services at Five Rivers Child Care & Midhurst Children’s Therapeutic Services, where he leads teams of psychologists and psychotherapists. He is also a Fellow and Faculty member of the International Society for Trauma and Dissociation, and serves as a trustee of the Bowlby Centre in London and The Consortium of Therapeutic Communities (TCTC).


Related Podcasts:

If you liked the conversation with Richard, you may also like:

My Interview with Patricia Sheridan of Moore House:

You may also like my conversation with Dr Kevin Gallagher:


Transcript:

Colby: 0:00

Welcome to the Secure Start Podcast.

Richard: 0:03

There’s something about having a really good mentor, having a good individual who can create the space for you to think, grow, and develop and wrestle with some of these tensions and unknown elements that can often come around in the world. It’d be great if you could put an old head on your own shoulders, but the reality is that that can never be the case. So we need to go through this. Through this process of learning. It’s that experience that we have someone there that’s going to stand by us through that process of learning, through that process of growth. It’s so reassuring, and we don’t want to care for the staff equally as much as we do the children. We often see the graduates of within the home having other children in mind. I speak to leadership and management, but what’s that going to mean in terms of the leadership style in the organisation and the culture that’s going to permit staff to be able to move to a place where we can truly use the structures and attachment to twelve and form. And we start to think, to learn, to grow, to develop. But if people think twelve and four care to be responsive is easy. It’s not. To be able to deliver this and to be able to do it, so it’s created as a living experience for the staff and a direct experience for the children. It takes a lot of courage and bravery because people need to go and think about hearings and would not really think of it. Foster care can be highly effective for those children who have anaphobic about family living. You know, the great thing at the moment is that five of us is changed caring for over a thousand children, and then the much of it those children are in foster care. Very happy, really good outcomes, you know, great foster parents, you know, doing great work. But there is a group of children and young people that are still the BO them to identify when residential the residential environment is the environment that’s best for them.

Colby: 2:25

Welcome to the Secure Start Podcast. I’m Colby Pearce, and joining me for this episode is a leader in therapeutic and social care in the UK who has a particular focus these days on supporting those whose therapeutic task is to support children in need. Before I introduce my guest, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands that I come to you from, the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is Richard Cross. Richard is a UK registered psychotherapist and child psychotherapist. His career for over 30 years has focused on working with relational approaches in areas associated with attachment, trauma, and dissociation. Richard’s early career was focused on developing relationally based treatments within correctional environments to reduce recidivism, as well as managing democratic prison-based therapeutic communities for high-risk adult life sentenced offenders. Richard collaborated with Sandra Bloom to introduce the Sanctuary Model in the UK in 2004. Since then, Richard has developed an interest in trauma-responsive models and continued his focus on therapeutic communities, exploring how to bring these aspects to life in organisational cultures. One example is a multi-component approach called Attic, Attachment and Trauma Informed Care, which is now harnessed across multiple residential childcare homes. Richard is actively involved in research and innovation, and he also provides consultancy services to organisations and training to qualified mental health professionals. Richard is Director of Clinical Services at Five Rivers Childcare and Midhurst Children’s Therapeutic Services, where he leads teams of psychologists and psychotherapists. He is also a fellow and faculty member of the International Society for Trauma and Dissociation and serves as a trustee of the Balby Centre in London and the Consortium of Therapeutic Communities. Welcome, Richard.

Richard: 5:18

Thank you. Thank you so much, Colby, for that very warm welcome. And it’s really good to be here.

Colby: 5:24

Yeah, and look, it’s lovely to have you and thank goodness for the technology. Otherwise, uh be coming from a different uh well, I’m in the future for you, um, because I’m later in the same day. Um, and and also this technology uh allows me to sound very professional in the opening, even uh if you had to sit through a couple of uh blooper worthy moments there. Now, Richard, is there anything um that you’d like to add to that um that short bio I just uh gave of you?

Richard: 6:01

No, naturally, that’s that was that was very kind for you to share about a little bit about my developmental work history there. Uh but naturally it can’t cover off uh everybody that’s been really supportive of the thinking and innovation that I’ve had the privilege to do because often it takes organizations and systems a leap of faith to consider doing something something new or innovative.

Colby: 6:32

So yeah. Yeah, well, I I want to I do want to um talk to you as we go through about um about individuals, organizations that that that have um uh been influential, I guess, in in uh your career to this point. But I guess I’m wondering in the first instance, maybe if you can tell us a little bit about how you got into this um this space, this space. Uh you might even uh have some other words to describe the space you occupy uh in your work.

Richard: 7:11

Yeah, it’s fascinating when we end up at a destination. We often think about how did we get here, and I think for many people that getting gets involved in thinking about how to supporting children and young people, often there’s a real benefit to think about port supports being our motivators uh to engage in the task, and I’ll sometimes even help the care staff and the people that I support to really think about joining the dots around us. Uh personally uh yeah, you know, I had uh I think one of the driving forces was thinking about the key significant peoples in my early development that supported me through what wasn’t uh uh a particularly easy time coming into the world and uh starting starting off in life, and those experiences really stuck with me. So when I uh left the military in uh 1991, I left the services uh the Navy. I thought, what is it I’m gonna do? And for some unconscious reason, I I ended up working in young offenders. That was my first sort of task. That started off as a prison officer. Uh but very quickly within I think it was six months, I had this really supportive governor, uh, somebody called Dan Gunn, who uh MBE who uh supported me to go on my journey to become first qualified in psychology, but then start up my route to become a psychotherapist over the over the preceding 12 years and get some, you know, and then I got involved in the programs and the like. But yeah, so yeah, there’s there’s uh I often reflect on how I ended up, but there was something that was driving me to think about understanding the needs of children and young people. Uh even back then, it was thinking, thinking be sort of beyond what the label was back then, back in the 91 when I first joined the young offenders. It was all about the young person who committed a certain offense, which which is important. But quite early on, I was thinking, what is it that we need to do to think about what happened to this young person? What was the drivers, what was the antecedents for them to end up in their journey to end up in the young offenders? So yeah, that was that’s a little bit about my early embryonic sort of foray into the work.

Colby: 10:10

Aye, aye. And um uh was is there through your um uh your career since then, you’ve you you hinted at before that there’s been individuals and organizations, I guess, that have been willing to give give things a go or give give your ideas and innovations a go. I’m really excited to have you on because um I said the magic word when I in your bio, uh, which was bulby. And uh I think I think early on in each podcast, I I tend to ask people um about what theoretical orientations um uh influence their work. And I’ve been waiting for someone who who to uh who obviously um has drawn on attachment theory um probably similarly, uh if not uh more than I have done in my own career.

Richard: 11:08

Yeah, John John Bowlby and the subsequent pioneers. Uh because often thinking has its origins, and hopefully then there’s there’s others that can come after and pick up the bat and uh and carry on these these areas of development and thinking, and just as John Bowby’s uh theory is and uh and all uh and also pioneers about the social mind as well. Uh Colin Trif Island, for instance, uh there’s there’s been so many pioneers who who who create idea. Uh so John Balby was a very significant influence in my early war. That’s in part that was why I chose to go and they support places like the Balby Centre in London, but also thinking about how that relational aspect about how it can be applied not only to the practitioners themselves, thinking about their relational aspects in the work and the therapeutic task, but also thinking about the tasks with the child or the young person. Yeah, it’s very important, and I think the whole notion that John Bowlby brought, and I can remember watching his very last interview that was filmed, he uh he often said he had a regret about not incorporating as much as he wanted around the whole notion of trauma. He did move the theory away from the fan this notion of fantasy into the reality, but he had this element uh in his last interview with Peter was saying that there’s so much we need to do in terms of hearing what the children are bringing to us and and understanding that context in the relation of adversity. Uh so yeah, John Bowlby is a very influential person, but so so has been the people that I’ve had the privilege to work with. Uh so I can remember back in uh 2003 I was presenting at a conference in Scotland, uh, and at that time it was presenting on attachment, it was called broken bonds. Uh and in the audience was somebody called Sandra Bloom. And I’m fascinated when we’re passed cross, just like we’ll pass across in today, Colby. Uh when I pass cross with like-minded people, it can often create an energy to think about how we can collaborate and work together. So that was a significant experience for me because I was speaking about things like essays, the importance of the therapeutic relationship within residential childcare. And some of these concepts back then, because that was before trauma informed ideas were in the UK in a big way, it seems to just have become massive like overnight. But in the audience was Sandra who had uh developed this model, and it was great to be able to collaborate with her uh and and and bring that to the UK, which was great.

Colby: 14:32

And that was the sanctuary model.

Richard: 14:34

That was a sanctuary model, and I suppose at that moment, 2004, that had been after I’d my path had crossed with with uh someone called Roland Woodward who uh developed a democratic prison-based TC called HMP Dovegate, and he gave me the opportunity of being the therapy manager for a 40 40-bed therapeutic community. And I wish I could bottle experiences sometime to to give people an experience because to be able to work and manage a team in a therapeutic community for a period of time uh and embody principles like containment and management of anxiety and start to understand how these ways of working can be really effective in turning people’s lives around. Uh it would be because sometimes I feel it’s really hard for people to understand how cultures need to be in a live and breathing way, unless they’ve experienced it. You know, I used to say have faith in the process, uh but that can be difficult if you you haven’t experienced what a process is. And uh I’m going to say thank you for like to roll in because he was there’s something about having a really good mentor, having a good individual who can uh create the space for you to think grow and develop and wrestle with some of these uh these tensions and unknown elements that can often come around in the work. Uh yeah, there’s so many people I could actually say thank you to, you know. There’s I’m sure everybody is that what’s in this field, you know. We’ve like we’ve often had somebody, I’m gonna say something about Bulby here. Uh we’ve often had somebody that’s been at our shoulder that can help and support us in our work, particularly in the early, you know, the early foundational stages of our growth into either being clinicians or therapeutic residential practitioners. We’ve often had somebody at our shoulder that’s that’s embodied that confidence to then go through the professional maturation process, as I call it, to get to a point we can feel more comfortable in the task.

Colby: 17:03

I’ve I’ve I’ve kind of referred to it when previous guests have brought it up as the importance of had people who have confidence in us until we have confidence in ourselves.

Richard: 17:16

That’s that’s such a nice way of putting that, you know, that whole notion that uh and I think this is what children and young people need, you know, this this intentionality that we believe in someone, it’s it’s uh it’s often the unspoken though. It’s like it’s that experience that we have someone there that is going to stand by us through that process of learning, through that process of growth. Uh it’s so reassuring, and and it can automatically reduce anxiety because often that is that’s the critical element that I feel that I’m day-to-day. It’s like it’s my day-to-day task almost of being the being the processor of anxiety from like for staff, creating spaces where they can sit and gain their confidence and tolerate uncertainty and uh yeah, develop that understanding. That’s a nice, very nice way to put it, Colby.

Colby: 18:17

Yeah, well, thank you. I I I had these moments every now and then, but um I I’d forgotten about it until you were talking just then. But um uh you I mean, you’re obvious you were also talking about containment when you were talking about holding on to and and processing other people’s anxiety. So I I sense that containment theory and perhaps the work of Beyond has also uh been of some um well thank you.

Richard: 18:46

Yeah, I’ve I was I was so lucky I had a supervisor for a long time called Bob Hinchelwood. Uh he’s a professor and he’s a psychoanalyst, and uh often that transfer of knowledge and wisdom. I used to have like my first supervisor used to say uh it’d be great if you could put an old head on young shoulders, but the reality is that that can never be the case. So we need to go through this through this process of learning. So yeah, Wilfred Beyond, he was uh when I got involved in therapeutic community work, I used to prolifically read the texts about the origins of TCs, you know, Northfield experiments, you know, thinking about how Beyond, Tom Main, uh Maxwell Jones. I I really like his ideas of the social, the social environment as well. Uh there’s all these active ingredients and knowledge that people have people have identified and brought that we can think about bringing to life, and there’s often interconnections as we know, so so Beyond’s work on containment is really connected as well to Donald Winnicott and that notion of emotional holding, as Winnicott called it. And Winnicott naturally worked with Barber Docker Drysdale. So sometimes when we look, you know how we’re talking about people’s past crossing. Often, often there is the crossing and history of uh how knowledge is then translated from one to another. So, yeah, containment, emotional holding, thinking about how we can use the day-to-day environment effectively for the therapeutic task and all that’s been the foundation of my work, yeah, for many years.

Colby: 20:43

And what one of the things that I often say about Balby is that he was not insular or siloed in it, you know, in the way that so many can be. Um you know, in his time and and and more recently, he was drawing on work from other areas of endeavour and integrating it into attachment theory. So attachment theory is an integration in a way of multiple areas of endeavour. Um and I just go off like I’m sorry. No, no, you say, you go ahead.

Richard: 21:20

No, it’s interesting because if you ever, you know, if I don’t know if you’ve ever been to the Taverstock clinic where Bowby was based, uh in London, it’s a you know, it’s it’s still a center of psychoanalytical thinking. But but even back when Bowlby arrived, and often often a new theory when it emerges, it’s there’s often a there’s often a rejection, there’s often a pushback. And I find this is a fascinating dynamic, particularly in work around children, because often children we can be very clear about their histories and why they’re having to get the supports they’re needing, but often just like theories are often struggle with. I think in general, this notion about attachment theory, thinking about how we handle that. There can be a bit of a bit of a wrestle for professional organizations and systems to you know to truly embrace it, to truly understand it and how to translate it in actual direct practice. Uh there’s there’s there’s often a real challenge about walking the talk, as I call it, in the field. And this is natural and normal in terms of human beings, it can be hard to do what we say we’d like to do. Uh so that’s why systems really need to develop approaches that they can tolerate almost the checking out. Are we sticking to where we want to be? Are we you know we’re staying in staying in this position of therapeutic mindedness and relational-based practice, particularly when the stress comes on the system.

Colby: 23:02

Yes.

Richard: 23:12

And sometimes Bowby, I think, had a really difficult time of it. He didn’t think you know, the very you know, the very early stages. Now it’s like one of the widest embraced uh frameworks that’s in the world. But back in the early thing, yeah. Yeah, yeah.

Colby: 23:33

There’s a there’s a lot in there. One of the things that you mentioned it was about it can be difficult to walk the walk sometimes. Yeah, I think I think theories are good if they have good explanatory power and and and they’re easily understood, digested, and and I think you know, for me, from when I first got involved in child protection work, attachment theory and 30 years ago, attachment theory gave me the best way of um helping me with with um understanding the work that I was doing. Just going back to um I liked your your your idea of having a mentor that you know someone that just is there at your shoulder, guiding you in a way, and and I talked about them having having someone that has confidence in you until you have confidence in yourself. And you mentioned too that that that’s essentially something that we we do for the children that we work with. Um and um and I you know I’ve talked about this with previous guests, but I we talk about you know, we want I think a really important aspect of the work is to ensure that the adults have it have this have an experience of being held in mind, an experience of of being looked out for and looked after in a way that we want them to in turn transmit to the child or or to be to be doing with the children it themselves.

Richard: 25:13

Yeah, and that’s that’s that’s that’s part of the model and the thinking that I’ve actually embodied within attachment and trauma-informed care. Because I thought about how to distill quite complex ideas into uh a model which can be easily embraced and understood. And what I created was two parallel pathways, uh one for the staff and one for the children and young people. And basically the parallel pathway is saying we are going to care for the staff equally as much as we do the children because they are the therapeutic agents of change, and it’s like what does what does an adult adult practitioner need in terms of that mentoring, that support, that guidance, supervision? So, yeah, I work through these parallel models, which fascinatingly it then starts to give the practitioners or the carers or the staff the knowledge and the experience to more directly to be able to do this with the children and young people, because not everybody arrives at the therapeutic task having the knowledge, experience, attunement, and the abilities to do the work with the children. So we we really put as much nourishment as we possibly can into the care staff because so my role really and my my clinical services teams are to care for the carers, to do that that you’re describing very eloquently, Kobe, about giving that that that sense of uh togetherness, uh and it’s fascinating because we even see this happening between the children and young people. We we often see group like the graduates of uh within the home having having other children in mind, starting you know, helping and supporting them. So it’s I see the system as everybody, I see the system as the staff, the children, young people, and also the relationships with the two children themselves, and about how they can start to support and think about each other and help each other.

Colby: 27:37

Yeah, you you’re I think the point to make is that if you want to create a healing system, you need to be supporting your staff very well in a in a way that is analogous or closely aligned with, I should say, with with what how you want the staff to um care for the children. And I think you know, when I think about who comes to the work, um and previous guests referred to the the kind of wounded healer, or you know, you all you’ll often you’ll often get people who come to the work who um haven’t had the the best of upbringings themselves. Yeah, and so they don’t they’re not necessarily they they probably come with an idea of what they don’t want to repeat, they don’t want the children to repeat. And it repeat they want to relieve suffering, they don’t want other children to to experience and go through what they’ve gone through. What they maybe um benefit from is is is a form of um reparenting in terms of setting that re resetting the parenting model for them, yeah. And a containing mentor, supervisor, I guess is it it’s an important part of that relationship.

Richard: 29:05

Yeah, and that supervisor relationship needs to needs to create the environment, the you know, the weather system almost about how that uh professional development can take place. Uh because there is there is a process that often goes through for new staff coming into the field, and I used to find this uh even within the prison-based T sort of TC environment, that the first stage is people arrive believing they’re going to be this omni-important saviour for the children and do this sort of change over like married days, you know. They’re gonna be able in some way make uh significant changes quickly, but then often it’s the repeated relational attunement. Attachment over quite a period of time, and that takes sometimes the need to be really resilient and to be aware of our own biologies and responses, and really understand ourselves and our triggers. And that supervisory relationship can hopefully create an environment where staff can have their own uh well-being and safety plans, so they really start to understand themselves, understand their own responses when the therapeutic task gets difficult. Have a space that they can go and talk about how they feel emotionally before this anything gets acted on. So that uh I really like Tom Main’s notion of thinking non-action, being able to create an ability where practitioners can think but not act. Uh naturally, that’s what we want to support the children with as well, to get to a place where they can think and then you know, through this thinking stuff and not have to act through behaviors. But staff need to learn that, staff need to be able to be in the presence of a child and create a space between them and the child that they can do this thinking and understanding so they can do the attachment work, like we know they can, you know, they know what how they can be in their best of selves uh and respond to children.

Colby: 31:29

Yeah, and and of course, containment the idea behind containment theory and what Beyond wrote about that was essentially um we support another person and in doing in doing so we facilitate their capacity to think.

Richard: 31:45

Yeah.

Colby: 31:46

And I think and I think staff staff who are thought of are better equipped to think of others. If you yeah, when you encourage reflection on your own motivations, the reason why you do things, the reason why you you reacted in that way, your blind spots, when when you’re encouraged and supported to do that, then I guess in turn you don’t just jump to the immediate conclusion that children are bad because they’re doing behavior that is not um agreeable, and uh and they should and they need to be disciplined in some way. You there’s a there’s a cart and a horse thing going on here, and I I myself have been across my career guilty of putting the cart before the horse. If the whole if the cart is teaching this is teaching the adults, this is how you um you need to be relate therapeutically or care therapeutically for the children. If that’s your first step, your first move, then I’ve been as guilty of it as probably you know great many people have. But as I’ve gotten older, and you talked about putting an old head on young shoulders. I am hoping the podcast by interviewing very experienced people does help uh new practitioners in the area a bit, accelerate the growth, so to speak. But yeah, you know, the first step needs in in therapeutic endeavor, it’s become much more clear to me over time, needs to be to um needs to be our endeavours to support the staff and contain the staff and facilitate their own reflective capacity.

Richard: 33:33

Yeah. Yeah, there’s there’s someone that sadly passed away recently called Philip, Philip Bromberg, who’s a psychoanalyst, and he’s written written prolifically about working with complex trauma and dissociation. And yeah, his notion is about always being aware to hold us hold a space between you and the other. That like beyond beyond stuff was about being able to create this metabolic, this this said sort of digestion of another’s person’s uh transference or affect or whatever notion we want to consider. But without creating a space to think, hopefully, all structures out there trying to do the therapeutic task, uh hopefully they have a place where it can be protected to do to do that work, as a group, but also individually in supervision. Uh because without that, people can start to get a bit lost in the task.

Colby: 34:40

Well, I think yeah, my view is that they become procedural and and heartless in the sense that there’s you know, the heart is lost from the work because it’s just a cognitive, it’s not even a cognitive exercise, it’s it’s a reflexive approach, you know. Um, there’s not not that thinking. I I am very concerned about child protection systems, like statutory child protection systems, where workers from you know supervisors down to the to to workers um at the coal face are just you know so much under the pump that they don’t have that opportunity to stop and think about the work that they’re doing.

Richard: 35:24

It becomes a paradoxical situation around the whole things around the social care system, is that everybody like I come from the position that everybody are good entities wanting to do the good task, but often the systems be can can become unconsciously uh distracted due to the some of this parallel shift in us, but some of the anxieties, some of the trauma-related challenges, and actually these systems are working with extreme distress, extreme challenges that can often create reactivity in the systems, but like uncannily that we know what can help and sometimes it’s around holding the boundary around the systems and the processes that we know that work because they’re often the things that go out the window of us, sadly. Uh so it’s like trying to know that people are good people, but be able to find ways that we can raise it in the consciousness about what’s happening because people find it really easy to deal with the rational about uh objectives and well, we’re doing great, and but when things become irrational and they become really difficult, there’s a rule, there’s a real challenge for people to consider that, to think about it, and to really tap into what the reality might be going on, so then solutions can be identified. Thought you know, thought like this, thought through relational-based solutions for people, but also families and children.

Colby: 37:09

It’s it’s such an interesting area. I and I wonder about your experience of introducing um maybe new staff or or new organizations, your experience your experience of trying to introduce um this this thing that we’re talking about, where what we how we want the staff to interact with the children, we’ve we’ve got to offer that as an experience for the staff in their in supervision, in mentoring, in yeah, how how does how does that how does that go down, so to speak, when when you try that?

Richard: 37:52

Attachment and trauma-informed care. So it’s a model now that’s uh you know it’s been in five five rivers childcare for a long period of time, but it’s also going into all the organizations outside the five rivers now. And the first thing I’ve the first thing I say to organizations and the leadership, so start the leadership, even right up at the the point of the directors of the organization, because uh I’ll say this is a journey, it’s not uh I’m gonna arrive today and we’re gonna do this intervention and it’s gonna be in place tomorrow. I’m gonna hand out these leaflets, I’m gonna I’m gonna do a bit of training, and then all of a sudden, the whole organization is going to be trauma involved. Uh so I start off with a realistic base about the journey, about how that’s going to be, what it’s going to feel like. That’s a notion I’ve taken from my work uh as a psychotherapist with traumatised clients. So, like clients will come into me and they’re often like, What’s this going to be like, Richard? And I give a sense about what the journey is going to be like. And it’s like we’ll give a sense about what we need to achieve first. And so, in terms of trauma-informed practice, it’s safety, stabilization, all these notions. But it’s the same for organizations, we go back to we go back to the sort of foundational ways, and this is where the A in attachment and trauma-informed care comes in. I speak to leadership and management about what’s that going to mean in terms of the leadership style in the organization and the culture that’s going to permit staff to be able to move to a place where we can truly use the structures in attachment and trauma-informed care to allow staff to think, to learn, to grow, to develop. How are you as a leadership team going to respond when things might not go quite well within our service? How like how are we going to respond? Uh, how are we going to work together to embed uh these ways of working? Uh so right from the start, it’s all about collaboration, open, transparent communication, you know, it’s almost setting setting the tone, setting the culture. Uh but you know, if anybody thinks trauma-informed care is an easy option, but it can be if you do a bit of training and you get a leaflet and you think you’re trauma-informed. But if people think trauma-informed care and and being responsive is easy, it’s not to be able to deliver this and to be able to do it so it’s created as a living experience for the staff and a direct experience for the children takes a lot of courage and bravery because people need to go and think about areas they would not normally think about in terms of the work.

Colby: 40:58

Yeah, so um I think you’ve touched on the importance of senior management um and or setting setting expectations, managing expectations from the outset. And uh, you talked about you know going into an organization, speaking to those leaders. And while you’re speaking to me, it reminded me of of some previous conversations I’ve had on the podcast about about how we ensure that our that the very leadership of the of these organizations are um uh uh supported to have experiences of of of the model, basically. That you support you know have a have a containing supervisory relationship or relationship with the mentor. Yeah.

Richard: 41:46

Yeah. Can I just say a little bit about how I came to attachment and trauma and phone care? Just a little bit

.Colby: 41:54

Yeah, absolutely. Go ahead. I was working my way around, I was working my way back around to that, but you’re reading it.

Richard: 42:01

Well, because yeah, no, it just somebody came to mind there, and it was and it was the person called Pam Pam McConnell that created five five rivers childcare. So 36 years ago, uh actually on the 19th of September, Pam McConnell created the entity which is called Five Rivers Childcare. And it’s I’ve been there nearly 16 years, and I’ve I’ve stayed there because it’s a secure base for me. Because I believe places of work can also create this sense of security, places you can grow and develop. So I’ve been there for 16 years, but what Pam created, even away back 36 years ago, she noticed that those children who had sadly experienced sexual abuse, trauma, and neglect, the systems weren’t designed to meet their needs. So she was she was very creative and very innovative, and she she started to create residential environments, residential homes for children and young people to come and stay in. And since then, the organization’s significantly grown, we’ve gone into foster foster care, uh, education, we’ve got clinical services, but the key task is to support children at the heart, you know, at the heart of the organization, it’s doing good, thinking about how we can help children and turn their lives around. But PAM allowed the creative thinking about developing a model that could be easily accessible across multiple multiple geographical locations, about thinking about how we we we package up what can be quite complex psychoanalytical, therapeutic community ideas, adapting it into a model that can be translated and easily uh applied if the live and breathing system is on board, if that leadership manager team is in place. Um so yeah, Pam, you know, Pam McConnell just naturally came to mind because without her support and uh Five Rivers is a social enterprise, it’s you know, it’s it’s uh in the UK that means that paradoxically, people have difficulties thinking about sadly, care organizations need to charge because we need staff wages to pay and all that sort of stuff. But as a social enterprise, we reinvest, we reinvest in research, development, invest in our staff, and a bit of the investment that Pam gave was to allow me to invest in creating a model for the organization, which was great. So, yeah, yeah, I wanted to say my appreciation to Pam McConnell for that.

Colby: 44:59

Yeah, it is a remarkable organization because as you mentioned, it has residential care, it has foster care, it has education as a school, has clinical services. Yes, it has multiple schools, multiple services, and crisis intervention. Yeah, and and crisis support services as well.

Richard: 45:19

So, yeah, it’s got these multiple uh so in terms of children, in terms of their care journeys, they can come in at any part. Sadly, children, you know, it’d be a you know, the world would be a great place if children didn’t have to access our services. But the reality is children do, and sadly, in an increasing way across societies, there’s an increase. So, like in the UK at the moment, there’s about a 10% increase in the use of residential childcare. Yeah, uh often sadly, residential childcare isn’t seen as an early intervention, and that’s partly why I developed ATIC because it’s for under 12s initially. That was when I sort of developed the idea that children who are going through repeated placement breakdowns and disruptions in foster care given a given an idea to commissioners and uh uh people who are not sadly not often practitioners in the field. Look, if you see this pattern, there is something else, there’s something else that can be really helpful and harmless for good, and that’s residential childcare. So the notion that we have is we’ve got multiple ways that children can come in and uh have a home with us, uh, and that’s either in residential care or foster care, uh and also access education and the therapeutic services is the need. Yeah.

Colby: 46:51

Oh, yeah. Look, um you’ve drawn you’ve drawn on a number of themes from some fairly recent podcasts. But as I’ve as I’ve been doing these podcasts, one of the things that um has been more and more clear to me is that the this option of last resort is just I mean, that’s what there’s a look, there’s a bit of a story to it. I won’t go into it all, but that that was one that was almost what spurred me on to do the podcast, and in particular a stream of the spot podcast that looks at at residential childcare. I just think that there’s so many problems with this idea of residential care being an option of last resort. I think as I think you did you just touched on in there, there are times when it can be an option of first resort. There are it, and that and and I I’ve been writing and thinking about that and talking to people about that. Um you it it it does, it is something that a number of guests have talked about uh that can be utilized, and this has got to be good quality, good quality, therapeutic focused residential childcare. It can be it can arrest one of the most harmful aspects of out-of-home care, which is repeated placement breakdown. And the other thing is, and Bruce Henderson talked about, he’s my most recent past guest uh on the podcast. He’s he’s probably done the the largest review of the literature, including the uh empirical literature around uh social care, including residential childcare. And um he talked really clearly about um placement matching, and he was in he’s involved with the Black Mountain um care organization, he’s in America over there, and and similarly they have residential and foster um options, and um and it it it it’s allowed what I think you know it sounds like you’re able to do there at Five Res Rivers as well, is is to uh mobilize the care that the children need um where where they are in their journey, and sometimes that’s residential care, often enough that’s residential care.

Richard: 49:24

Yeah, this is very embryonic work in the UK. Um so embryonic uh attachment and trauma-informed care came out of 36 years, you know, the past period of time that we’ve been working, so we’ve harnessed all that knowledge, but that’s only been really since 2016. So I know that’s it might sound a long time, but in terms of changing systems and changing knowledge, uh we’re still on that journey to collaborate and work uh with commissioners with with local authorities because I I feel we’ve got a responsibility to explain really accurately about what can be supportive and helpful for children in terms of their needs. Often we need to translate that for the local authorities and commissioners in terms of the plans that we do. So we’ve got uh you know, when we get the privilege to have a referral for a child, a young person, we spend a lot of time about right, even at that initial phase about really understanding the child’s needs and taking the responsibility for being truly able to say that we are able to support this child, and this is what we would suggest would be helpful in terms of that part of their care journey. Often it comes down to trust, though, with with local authorities and commissioners around is this going to be something that’s gonna be helpful for the child? And and naturally, this is where research and evidence comes in. Being able to deliver really focused uh supports and how to explain outcomes and how to translate that as we go through the journey as well, is support the commissioners to understand that this is being effective, then it then it generates uh more more trust, trustworthy reactions again in the future. So it’s like, yeah, we’ll go back to Five Rivers and we’ll consider this approach again, like residential. It should can be the first option because of the experience. So there is a big responsibility on providers, isn’t that, to be able to make sure that we deliver what we say on the outside of the tin, you know? Yeah, uh, that we walk the talk, going back to that walk the talk bit again.

Colby: 51:57

And I’ve whilst you’ve been talking, I’ve I’ve been thinking about how five rivers with all of with all of those divisions, it’s probably not I mean divisions is the wrong word in if you because it it implies divide, but you’ve got those streams is a better word, and and and you are able, I think I’m hearing, to be to provide an aligned service so that staff might move between the streams, kids might move between the streams, but they have a consistent experience of care across those streams.

Richard: 52:34

And that’s where the model almost provides a tapestry for that. So one of the great things that Sandra Bloom told me when and I learned from what going back to the mentorship thing again, was language becomes the glue in terms of the model, in terms of how we speak about the work, uh how we see the task. And if that is shared consistently, if that language is shared across the different uh almost threads like the education, residential fostering. Children experience this as well. Children experience staffs using the same language, the experienced staff having the same response if situations are occurring. You see the adults sitting down and thinking together, you know. Uh yeah, it creates that uh that harness in the tap. Well, often people call it integration. Uh so one of the things that we do seek to make sure we don’t experience is this fragmentation in the system. In actual fact, people do become that sort of separate siloed uh thinking and the breakdown and communication. So part of the model was as well about the shared language is also making sure we keep these strands interconnected and almost be really aware if they start to drift apart, which can be natural and normal and anxiety. I’m not saying that there’s there’s anything abnormal about that that tension that that can happen, but we are really aware so we can bring things back together.

Colby: 54:11

It’s like and how reassuring for children who leave chaos and uncertainty to come into a place where they uh where the adults interact with them similarly. Because I think I think a task, a therapeutic task or a primary task and a model, it doesn’t make everyone clones of each other, it just ensures that there are there are aspects of uh the way they go about things that are consistent across home and school. And I think that that even just in and of itself, as long as there’s that consistency, that alignment between home and school, and it’s safe and and nurturing, but as long as there’s that, that it that’s gonna have such a massive impact on heightened nervous systems, yeah.

Richard: 55:04

So that magnification is a you know, when I was developing attachment to trauma and informed care, I thought, how can I magnify these helpful relational experiences? Going back to attachment again. How can I magnify these experiences?

Colby: 55:19

Can I say it all comes back to attachment? Sorry, I didn’t want to talk over you, but I I just needed to chime in there. It all comes back to attachment. Sorry, yeah, go ahead.

Richard: 55:30

No, it’s it’s great, yeah, because naturally it’s great, you know. All like research shows like if we’ve got one person, you know, it can have like quite a significant impact on us. But imagine if we can magnify that having 12, 15 people. So like I was looking at okay, if I can create this this approach in the residential care environment and have it in the schools, and when children are prepared and ready to go to their home in foster care, and the carers are embodying this stuff as well. It’s you know how enriching, how nourishing is that for the children, but also it creates this really helpful relational way of working and way of managing stuff between the staff and the adults as well. They’ve got this sense of understanding about okay, when this stuff happens, we get together. Uh, we’ve got different approaches for crisis management. There’s one called an amber flag meeting, which is anybody can call it, it’s like when things start to become difficult, staff can raise the flag, call a space, everybody gets together. We’re all involved in thinking, all involved in supporting. Uh and it, you know, it takes away the anxiety and fear that it becomes an everybody approach rather than somebody feeling their left on their own with a situation. Again, going back to attachment theory, uh, you know, often yeah, we’ve got our own resources and we want to develop that and our staff increase their resiliency. But when it gets to a point they feel overwhelmed, they feel like people either grow or they go sadly in the work. You know, people either grow in the work or uh it feels it gets too much, they leave. So we have like we’re all about growing people, so create and make sure people know they’ve got an outlet if they feel they’ve got to the end of their solutions or the end of the resources. We create this space where they can come and talk through and uh get the helping support they need.

Colby: 57:42

And of course, um um the first of my guests to um talk something uh a little about this was John Whitwell and uh of Cotswold Community and ISP uh integrated services. I’m not sure I got that last bit right, but anyway, John John was talking about uh going to because he went to the it went from residential care to foster care, and uh on the first day the staff, you know, there was something was going on in Stafford came to him and said, What do we do? What do we do? And he says, I don’t know. But but let’s talk, what do you mean you don’t know? Um but let’s talk about it, and I think, yeah, yeah, yeah. Like there’s and that has come back a number of times. Um, in fact, Peter Wilson, who we were talking to about a little bit beforehand, uh uh wanted to name his forthcoming book or title his first coming book forthcoming book, I don’t know. The because the I think the the the the um the the power or the influence or the strength in that is that it invites collaboration. And one of the things that that I’ve noticed, just as a bit of an aside, when I when I do training with um carers, uh if we if a carer brings up an issue to do with um a child in their care and they just don’t and they don’t know where to go with that, the other carers are actually really good at offering solutions, yeah. Yes, but then those same carers feel stuck in coming up coming up with solutions about their own the the children in their in their care. So it’s it’s quite fascinating that if you take if you take almost like a metacognitive stance, yeah, you’re yeah, you’re one step removed from it. The the yeah, that’s such a resource to be around people who are one step removed from being in the in that particular challenge.

Richard: 59:54

I think it’s I think it’s one of the key areas that can impede for. Trauma informed practice in my mind is the inability to tolerate what I call the unknowing. And that’s a direct translation from my work with clients because we can be sitting thinking we’ve got the answer. But the sad bit is if we think we’ve got the answer, we’re missing the opportunity to find out what it is actually like or what the meaning is from the other person. And equally with staff, the temptation is to think about that we’ve got the answer and to do the quick solution. And uh thinking really like back in my early work 30 years ago, I used to be so keen about just getting a solution. Let’s just let’s just do something. Because I used to come to the thing about doing something was better than doing nothing, right? But in actual fact, being able to tolerate uncertainty that uncertainty, that unknown for a period of time creates opportunities that uh can make people feel the part people need to feel part of the solution because otherwise, what what we find out in the terms of the attachment uh people go into that ambivalent state, they feel that they’ve not got a voice, there’s no point in saying, they become silent, and those toxic things within care environments are unawanted because we need we need people to feel they’re part of, they’ve got a voice, they can be heard. Uh and it may be a difficult process this about working through this, but the outcome of it is as golden as I see it. It’s it is to me, it’s the work to be able to because equally the staff are going to have to do this for the children, they’re gonna have to try and understand what the children are communicating through their behavior, trying to make sense of it, uh, and coming to that from a certain lens as well, as we know it’s about uh trying to illuminate about what that communication is that the you know the child is doing between them and the staff.

Colby: 1:02:17

Yeah. While we’re while we’re talking, Richard, um a question without notice has been formulated in in my mind a little bit. Um but hopefully you don’t you don’t mind. Um the question is what it was starting out as what sort of child need needs residential care and it and and but it’s now it’s also kind of in my mind it’s it’s blending a bit with what what does residential care offer uh to children to children in need of care that that perhap of that is per hot perhaps superior that time of need for the child than than other forms of out-of-home care.

Richard: 1:03:11

I’d be interested in your thoughts about that well foster care in its is a in its own right can be highly effective. So in terms of my comments that I’m gonna say about is foster care can be highly effective for those children who are anaphobic about family living. Some of the responses I see children displaying, and it’s not about the family they go and stay in, but they carry inside themselves experiences about being in families that mean it’s going to be highly unlikely that they’re going to be able to stay and create security within that family. Uh it becomes unbearable for them. It’s uh and it becomes unbearable for the uh foster carers as well. And it’s the foster parents can sadly they can they can almost be placed in a situation where the material that they’re getting given to process and uh the behaviours and stuff gets to a point, and often foster carers can get to a point they they feel this task is task is too much for me. It’s too much. They get to yeah, too much. And sadly for children, then if they they start to expand, well, naturally they’ve had one, but their uh the original scene was in the family or origin, uh this is often replicated and reenacted within the foster replacements, and I’ll see the attempts to use foster care well into double figures sometimes. You know, children children will be in that repeated cycle. So if we can identify children as early on that that are gonna often I’ll I’ll see social workers and stuff understanding the children’s history through an attachment and trauma and form lens, understand about their experiences and knowing that that containment is going to be needed in terms of the children’s distress, it’s gonna need much more than foster care. Yeah, foster carers can’t typically manage situations where children act out excessively in terms of acting out against other people or uh the environment of the home, the foster foster parents’ home. So, quite early on, you can almost you can see what I call gateways. I’ve got this notion of gateways to particularly uh care options uh to help be able to identify through assessment, and this is where the psychological lens can come in within care organizations commissioning. I don’t know how it is in Australia. I don’t know if you know, I worked in New Zealand for a little period of time myself, but yeah. And I’m like I’m always fascinated about where care the care system is sort of held within the UK, it is social care. There is a greater involvement with health. To me, there needs to be even more. The more that we can help commissioning teams understand the psychological and emotional aspects of the child’s needs, then that can more effectively inform what part of the care journey does that child need. Does the child need residential care and all that that it offers, increased containment, and less risky staff burnout, foster carers, fostering families, massive risk of that? Uh we can provide this more integrated educational magnification of these principles that often child needs. And that often cuts down the time. Some of my some of my research at the moment has shown that if you do this early enough, it can be an early intervention that over the care journey period actually reduces not only the the child’s need for in terms of staying in these higher higher recruiting environments, so the child can go to foster care, uh but it also cuts down the time. Uh because naturally I saw the other end like working in that prison-based therapeutic community for adult male life offenders uh who had committed it was sad to see how many of those uh human beings had been in the care system. So this notion of early intervention and about stopping patterns and doing the you know, doing the work as early as possible, not as late as possible. To me, it’s a cost saver. To me, it’s uh to me it’s a no-brainer. It’s like just it’s just uh uh but it’s a challenge I know for systems to think past a year. You know, most uh business plans only cover one year, most governments I think only covers the their term in office. Some of this stuff is moving the systems to longer term thinking, longer term perspectives. Uh but I but I truly believe the more people that have these these ideas, the more we can send the messages out in the box to social care and social work and the political system. About let’s turn this thinking, you know, the mindset from short termism, like to sort of longer term.

Colby: 1:09:02

And and I mean, I think part of the whole option of last resort is for residential care is is it’s the most expensive form of care. So we don’t want we don’t want to be uh what we don’t want to be uh focusing initially on on the most expensive form of out-of-home care.

Richard: 1:09:24

Is it not?

Colby: 1:09:26

We’d rather we try foster care. And and and there is a a deeply held belief in society that the that family is the best place to raise children. But it’s not it’s not for those children, as you said, who are phobic of family, who have a phobia. And I’ve written, I first wrote about this um in a published paper 13 odd years ago. That um, and and so to me, residential care provides a psychologically so people think, oh, you know, with all the scandals and and so on, this is you’re mad for saying this. But in actual fact, residential care provides a psychologically safe, relationally safe care environment that is better for certain young child certain children and young people than than putting them into a into a family-based environment. And we we need all those options. We in my state here, they they embarked on a bit of a uh um uh an endeavor to to get rid of residential care because it was seen as being because it was of low quality, seen as being of low quality, option of last resort, expensive, all of these things. But but in a what I’m hearing you say is in a um in a functional, adaptive, um, effective uh social care system that that meets that is able to tailor care to the needs of the children and use fitness and match it placement matching um to its best ability, then residential care has an equal place alongside uh family-based uh care options. And I really like what you said that you think that it that it can enhance the young person’s preparedness to go into or ability to go into a family-based placement such that that’s uh more successful for them.

Richard: 1:11:39

Yeah, uh the evidence illustrates that uh so early on in the delivery of the attachment trauma-informed care model, it was children and young people who had largely been through that repeated placement disruption and ending and leaving one one relationship and going to another relationship, and often being out of education that would come into the service, and naturally we we we were we were still able to attain the trajectory that we wanted, the aspirational trajectory for the children in terms of them being able to go into foster care and becoming more secure. Uh but while even the children used to say to me about the trust thing, about almost their mindset was that they were gonna even have to leave that home, you know. It’s like the you know, the attachment systems have become so uh hyper-vigilant that they believed that nobody could care for them, nobody could uh tolerate what they were going to give us. And it’s like, wow, I’m not like I used to say, I’m not surprised that you’re giving me this stuff to have to handle for you. You know, this is what I used, you know, in terms of my understanding with the children, is that uh it’s quite understandable if they’re exposed to situations that are repeated and chronic and things don’t work. Uh yeah, it is still possible, but it’s much better for the for the child and the whole system to be able to identify those children, it’s not all children. No, uh you know, the great thing at the moment is that Five Rivers has changed caring for over a thousand children, and uh the majority of those children are in foster care, very happy, really good outcomes, you know, great foster parents, you know, doing great work, but there is a group of children and young people that I feel that we owe them to identify when residential uh the residential environment is as the environment that’s best for them. Yeah, yeah.

Colby: 1:13:59

I think that’s a wonderful spot to finish up, uh Richard, because um time is time is marching on. I’ve put I’ve kept you for over an hour. Um it’s been fantastic to chat with you and um and talk more about attachment uh on the podcast. Everything comes back to the catch. Um I’m being a bit time-cheapy. I’m kind of sort of being time cheap about that. Yeah, it’s been thank you for taking the time and uh invariably I I say it before I’d like to have you back on again at some stage because there’s so much more that we could talk about. So thank you.

Richard: 1:14:42

Thank you so much, Colby, for the time today. I’ve really enjoyed speaking to you.

Colby: 1:14:47

As have I. Thank you.

The Case for Quality Residential Childcare – A podcast interview with Bruce Henderson

“We don’t need to pit different kinds of care against each other. The real question is quality.” Professor Bruce Henderson shares compelling research showing why high-quality residential care should be an option—not a last resort—for vulnerable children.

Rethinking Residential Care

In a world where residential care for children is often viewed as a “last resort,” Professor Bruce Henderson’s evidence-based approach brings a refreshing perspective. His comprehensive analysis of the research challenges longstanding assumptions about what’s best for vulnerable children in out-of-home care.

Professor Henderson’s experience with Black Mountain Home for Children in North Carolina provides a compelling case study. What began as a struggling facility with outdated approaches was transformed through quality leadership into a model organisation offering a continuum of care. Today, Black Mountain provides not only residential care but also foster care, adoption services, family reunification support, and programs to help young people transition to independence. This approach recognises that children’s needs are diverse and often change over time.

The concept of “fit” emerges as central to Henderson’s argument. Rather than adhering to a rigid hierarchy of placements where family-based care is always prioritised, Professor Henderson advocates for matching each child’s specific needs, history, and circumstances to the most appropriate care environment. For some children, especially those who have experienced multiple failed foster placements or who need to remain with siblings, high-quality residential care may be the most appropriate first choice – not a last resort after everything else has failed.

One of the most disturbing statistics Professor Henderson shares is about children who have experienced dozens of placements. He mentions a young person who had been in 35 different placements by age 15, and the interviewer notes working with a child who had experienced 50 placements. The damage caused by this constant upheaval – educationally, socially, and psychologically – is immeasurable. For these children, stability in a well-run residential setting may be far preferable to continuing the cycle of failed family-based placements.

Professor Henderson’s critical analysis of the research literature is particularly valuable. He points out that much of the negative perception of residential care stems from a handful of influential studies, particularly research on Romanian institutions, which examined exceptionally poor care provided to infants and very young children. These findings have been inappropriately generalised to all forms of residential care for children of all ages. Meanwhile, research showing positive outcomes from quality residential care – including survey research with alumni who report positive experiences – receives much less attention.

The core issue, Professor Henderson emphasises repeatedly, is quality rather than setting. “You can find good and bad versions of every kind of care,” he notes. Quality care comes down to relationships – selecting the right staff, training them properly, supporting them adequately, and providing stability. When these elements are in place, children can thrive in residential settings.

Professor Henderson challenges the “family first” language common in child welfare policy, preferring the Danish approach of “children first.” This subtle but profound shift places the focus where it belongs – on the needs of individual children rather than on ideological preferences about care models. For some children, particularly older adolescents or sibling groups, quality residential care may be the environment where they can best heal, develop, and prepare for independent adulthood.

As jurisdictions around the world reconsider their approaches to child welfare, Professor Henderson’s evidence-based perspective offers a valuable corrective to simplistic thinking. Rather than eliminating residential care options, we should be focused on ensuring quality across all care settings and making placement decisions based on the specific needs of each child. Our obligation is to provide vulnerable children with environments where they can heal from trauma and develop to their full potential – whatever form that environment might take.

You can listen here:

You can watch below.


About Bruce:

Bruce is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Western Carolina University, and is a child psychologist (PhD for Minnesota) whose research until 2018 focused on the development of curiosity and memory in children, and on teaching in higher education. Since then, most of his writing has been about residential care. His book Challenging the Conventional Wisdom about Residential Care for Children and Youth: A Good Place to Grow (Routledge, 2024) is a critical appraisal of the research on residential care and a defense of high-quality residential care for children who need it. For over 35 years, Bruce has been involved with the Black Mountain Home for Children, Youth, and Families, an organization that provides residential care, but also has foster care and adoption services, transitional and independent living programs for older youth, and works to reunite children with their families of origin whenever possible. Bruce lives with his wife Judy in the mountains of Western North Carolina. 


Related Podcasts:

I am sure you will also like my conversations with Dr Laura Steckley and Dr Jenna Bollinger. Click the links below to watch and listen:


Transcript:

Colby: 0:00

Welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Bruce: 0:04

I think it’s a huge mistake to break up sibling groups when that may be the only part of their family that they’re still in touch with on a regular basis. I think the record that I know of was a young man at the age of 15 had been in 35 different placements 35 different placements, and if you think about what that does to your life, it’s just. I mean educationally, socially every way you can think of.

Bruce: 0:37

I think the issue is a matter of finding a fit between a particular child, that child’s history and an environment that’s going to work for that child, and I think residential care needs to be one of the options. I don’t think we need to pit different kinds of care against each other. I mean, you can find good and bad versions of every kind of care. And the question, the real question, is quality, the quality of the care, and it comes back to that every single time and to a large degree, the question of quality is a question of building relationships. If in fact, there’s a good chance of going back to the family of origin, residential care is kind of a neutral place to go.

Bruce: 1:18

The evidence is that we lose foster care families at a rapid rate and I think it’s oftentimes because of that insensitivity about the nature of that child. I don’t think residential care should be the norm for kids who need care. I think it’s gonna be relatively rare, but it needs to be one of the options. The last resort notion came from a belief that residential care was inherently bad for children. But if you ask a large number of alumni of residential care about their experiences and they tell you. They had good experiences and they never would have preferred foster care. You’ve got to give some attention to that.

Colby: 2:08

Welcome to the Secure Start podcast. I’m Colby Pearce, and joining me for this episode is the author of perhaps the most comprehensive review ever of the research evidence in relation to children’s residential care. Before I introduce my guest, I would like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands that I come to you from the Kaurna people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Kaurna people feel to land, waters, culture and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. My guest this episode is Bruce Henderson.

Colby: 2:55

Bruce is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Western Carolina University and is a child psychologist with a PhD from Minnesota, whose research until 2018 focused on the development of curiosity and memory in children and on teaching in higher education. Since then, most of his writing has been about children’s residential care. His book Challenging the Conventional Wisdom About Residential Care for Children and Youth A Good Place to Grow is a critical appraisal of the research on residential care and a defence of high quality residential care for children who need it. For over 35 years, bruce has been involved with the Black Mountain Home for Children, youth and Families, an organisation that provides residential care but also has foster care and adoption services, transitional and independent living programs for older youth and works to unite children with their families of origin whenever possible. Bruce lives with his wife, judy, in the mountains of western North Carolina. Welcome Bruce.

Bruce: 4:14

Thanks for having me, Colby.

Colby: 4:16

Yeah, and you quiped a little bit earlier about speaking to someone in the future, which probably the laugh that it got from me probably would have if we’d been recording. It would have blew out a few eardrums if we included it in the podcast recording. But yes, it’s nice to be here too. It’s Thursday for you and Friday for me.

Bruce: 4:41

And don’t give me the lotto numbers. I don’t need them.

Colby: 4:44

You don’t need them, you’re doing okay. Well, that’s good to know. Yeah, yeah, in my neck of the woods, professor Emeritus means that you’ve retired. Is that the same in America?Bruce: 4:58

Yes, it means I retired from teaching and committee work and you’re given access to your computer and to your email and you can sit on dissertation committees and things like that.

Colby: 5:14

But yeah, I basically retired from teaching in 2020 after 42 years, 42 years, and look, and I was going to uh make the point that it doesn’t really look so much that you, like you, have retired as such my, my brother calls it a faux retirement a faux. Yeah, that’s probably a good yeah, that’s probably a very good term to use yeah anyway, as long as you still enjoy it, why not?

Colby: 5:42

that’s right and that’s right yeah, and particularly brain active yes, yes, I can imagine myself writing, you know, until I can no longer write, I would in fact, I’m looking forward to retiring. I’ll probably do a faux retirement myself, in terms of I’ll retire from certain activities and free up a bit more time for reading and writing in the area.

Bruce: 6:06

Well, my job was at a regional comprehensive university we call them here, not a research university and so when you did research and writing, you had to find bits and pieces of time. So I find it quite a luxury to have a good deal of time to write. It’s been fun.

Colby: 6:26

Yeah, yeah. So, as I read out in your bio, your work activities until relatively recently were very much focused on teaching and training and you were interested in children’s curiosity and memory from a research point of view. But you have also had this longstanding connection to residential childcare, wondering if you’d tell us a little bit more about how that came about.

Bruce: 6:58

Well, my wife talked me into doing that. I didn’t really want to do it, but she had visited the Black Mountain home and at that time in 1989, the home was in a good deal of difficulty. Their leader had died unexpectedly. He had actually fallen back behind the times and really had needed to retire years before he died, and there were lots of problems and I didn’t really like what they were doing there. And so I went on the board and at that time met with other board members trying to find a way to gracefully close the place down. And it had become. It wasn’t serving very many children and it wasn’t, in my opinion, serving them very well. But instead of closing it down, we hired some effective leadership and that turned the place around.

Colby: 7:59

And that was, as you say, 35 years ago, in the early 1990s. Yeah, yeah, as you say, 35 in the early 1990s, yeah, yeah, what was it that you noticed?

Bruce: 8:12

where had it gone? Gone awry? From your perspective, I think, uh, they hadn’t kept up. Come up, uh, come along with new ideas about child care. They, they were still using almost a barracks kind of situation and they didn’t have cottages, they didn’t have enough house parents, the physical facilities had gotten old and dilapidated, they didn’t have a good education support. There were lots of things that needed to be fixed and they didn’t really have good relationships with the children’s families, and all of that needed to change.

Colby: 8:50

Well then, tell us a little bit about how that happened, how it came to be turned around.

Bruce: 8:57

Well, I think it’s almost always leadership, and we hired two leaders. It was a couple and the man had been involved in mental health he was a Presbyterian minister and he’d been involved in mental health and his wife was a child welfare lawyer and so they brought some skills that were really well applied in the child care situation well applied in the in the child care situation, and having having a lawyer around was quite useful in trying to help kids navigate the legal system.

Colby: 9:33

That oftentimes is pretty oppressive, and having that that kind of background really helped a lot and I was impressed to read that not only is Black Mountain these days a therapeutic residential child care facility, but it also has fostering activities associated with it. It has some endeavour around looking after young people who are entering adulthood who have been in out-of-home care, and also reconnection or strengthening connection with birth family.

Bruce: 10:13

Yeah, I think that what you see at Black Mountain is increasingly common with good programs. They often call it a continuum of care. I like to call it an array of services, because I don’t think continuum is an accurate description. But you know, children are complex. They’re as complex as they’ve ever been. Families are as complex as they’ve ever been, and so I think the programs need to have the flexibility to assess what’s going on with a kid or a family and then use whatever services are needed at that time, and you know that can change over time. It’s different for every child and family. Every child and family and we are at Black Mountain, like a lot of places, we’re dealing with kids who’ve had just awful experiences. I think the record that I know of was a young man at the age of 15 had been in 35 different placements, and if you think about what that does to your life, it’s just I mean educationally, socially, every way you can think of that’s insane.

Colby: 11:30

And so those are the kinds of situations we’re often dealing with arises that you see the young people with that level of well, that type of history, largely because of residential care being seen as an option of last resort, so that definitely has an impact.

Bruce: 11:58

So what? What has often happened to these young people is that they’ve been in foster situations that didn’t work, or even even, sometimes, adoption situations that didn’t work, or even, sometimes, adoption situations that didn’t work, and then they’re put in residential care and the pressure and this is not just true in the United States, it’s true all over the world there’s pressure to get the young person out of the residential care as fast as they can and oftentimes it just leads to another bad foster placement that doesn’t work and the kids suffer for it.

Colby: 12:33

So I guess what I wonder with what you’re saying is that sometimes children may even yo-yo in and out of residential care or between foster situations and residential care.

Bruce: 12:46

Some of the histories are amazing. I mean, you look at it and you say how can that happen to any child?

Colby: 12:52

Yeah, well, as it happens, I work therapeutically with children in the out-of-home care sector primarily, and I have a young person that I see at the moment who’s been through 50 5-0 placement that’s unbelievable, unbelievable yeah, yeah. So, um, the option of last resort, um, how does that sit with you?

Bruce: 13:24

Well, you know, I think the issue is a matter of finding a fit between a particular child, that child’s history and an environment that’s going to work for that child, and so the idea that you’ve got a hierarchy of placements makes no sense if you think in terms of fit, because there may be children the very first thing that would be best for them would be in residential care, and I’m not talking about being in residential care the rest of their lives.

Bruce: 13:57

Oftentimes, what they need is a period of time. It may be six months, it may be a year period of time. It may be six months, it may be a year, a year and a half, two years. It varies. And there’s another situation that is common and that is sibling groups.

Bruce: 14:11

And oftentimes sibling groups in the United States and I know other places get broken up because their foster families don’t want to take more than one child, and I think it’s a huge mistake to break up sibling groups when that may be the only part of their family that they’re still in touch with on a regular basis.

Colby: 14:33

Yeah, if you stop and think about it, and this is part of the problem, certainly in many jurisdictions, and what I’ve heard from many people talking on this podcast is that practice is dominated by a set of, I guess, principles or ideals or beliefs, indeed, one of those beliefs being the best place for children to grow up is in a family environment. The best place for children to grow up is in a family environment, and if that’s your paramount decision-making standard, then you get those sorts of situations where children are separated from their siblings, because if it’s a large sibling group, it’s very rare or difficult to find a family-based placement where they can all be together, and it comes with complexities when you do put siblings together as well that I think child welfare authorities often worry about.

Bruce: 15:43

Well, I think you’re right about the concept of family has, I think, been used in an unfortunate way, because sometimes what these kids need is a home. They need a place that is a home, and sometimes your biological family isn’t home, or at least it isn’t for a period of time.

Colby: 16:02

until it can become a home, you need another home yeah, yeah, I often and you made a very good point in there I I think the language we use is really important. I I strongly encourage child welfare authorities to um use the word, use the that’s not a word unless you make it one but use could not, instead of cannot be safely cared for at home. Because you see kids who tally up a huge number of placements over in their teens by the time they reach their teens and they’re still writing that the young person cannot be cared for at home, but no one’s really assessed that for years and years and and so much damage is being done in the meantime with, with, through failed placement endeavors. Uh, in family-based care.

Colby: 16:56

You see, black mountain is interesting for a number of reasons, not least of which is you have those, at least those four streams of endeavour that I talked about children’s residential care, the foster care, the transition from care and the family reconnection. I think. I mean it sounds like an absolutely ideal model service to me From your point of view view. You’ve talked about fitness and I think I think fitness is a a really key concept here, because fit in a struggling child welfare system, fitness goes out the window. They’re just looking for a bed, right, right, yeah, that’s right. But I also wonder about what your thoughts are about the relative standing of residential care alongside family-based foster care or adoptions, which you do in America.

Bruce: 18:02

Well, my view is that what we need are options because of the fit fit question, and I think residential care needs to be one of the options. I don’t think we need to pit different kinds of care against each other. I mean, you can find good and bad versions of every kind of care, and the question, the real question, is quality, the quality of the care, and it comes back to that every single time and, to a large degree, the question of quality is a question of building relationships, and one real problem with the last resort notion is that oftentimes the children are placed with the expectation they will not build relationships because they’re going to get yanked out soon, and that’s, I mean that that’s becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if you, if you say, well, um, you know that here’s the, here’s the care of last resort. Therefore, don’t build relationships, and then in, in fact, it’s bad care, it’s bad care by circumstance, and you said you talked a little bit earlier.

Colby: 19:12

You mentioned that for some children it may be the first resort, the option of first resort, and this is something that is very much in my mind at the moment and I’ll just just just very quickly. The reason being is that my, my long-held view or observation of children, young people, who find their way into out-of-home care, the trauma that they’ve experienced is relational trauma. It’s happened at the home, it’s happened, you know, with their parents and they come into care with. Well, I would say it’s uh for people, because people don’t easily think of it in this way. I would say it’s akin to a phobia, where the phobic object is there is a relationship, is relationship or relational connection.

Colby: 20:03

Now it’s, I would say it’s more than akin to a phobia. It is a phobia and that phobia has, you know, probably relative degrees of difficulty for the young people, a challenge for the young people and there are, there are probably young people, there are undoubtedly young people who come into care that perhaps the worst place to put them is in the family environment, where they’re really challenged by relational closeness and the expectations of the adults in those environments. And again, I think that comes back to what you were saying about fitness. I wonder have you got any comment you’d like to make about that?

Bruce: 20:48

Well, you know, I think something that goes with that is that we often think in terms of these children who’ve had traumatic experiences in their families, all in terms of parent-child attachment.Bruce: 21:04

But as kids get older, it’s their peer group that’s increasingly important.

Bruce: 21:09

And unfortunately, there has been a mythology that’s built around the idea that if you put kids in residential care, they’re just around other troubled kids and that’s just more trouble, when in fact I don’t think the research supports that.

Bruce: 21:24

And I think that if you have high quality care, as kids get older certainly when they’re by the time they’re 12 or 13, their peers are becoming increasingly important and that peer group can be a powerful form of relationship and, under the guidance of sensitive adults, that can be an important part of their therapy. And the idea that you’ve always got to go back to the infant-child attachment model I think is a mistake. Now, the infant-child attachment model works in the sense that every social relationship is about kids sending off signals and needing to get sensitive responses back from those they send the signals to, but it doesn’t have to be a parent and it doesn’t even have to be an adult yes, in fact, um children will continue to make relationships that we would we would refer to as attachment relationships throughout their throughout their growing years and even as adults as well.

Bruce: 22:30

And I don’t want to, you know, put down the parent-child relationship, because I mean, if it had worked in the first place, the kids would have been a lot better off. But the other thing I know is I’ve rarely met a child who wouldn’t go back to their family if they possibly could. I mean that that that is fundamental, and even when they’ve been mistreated, and even when they know it’s not a good situation in their heads, they would love to be able to go back to that. And so I don’t want to suggest that’s not an important relationship.

Colby: 23:05

it is yeah, and I think it’s something that it should be aspirational in terms of our endeavors, that we, we, we do endeavor to try and return them, and part of the part of my reasoning around this is that children form multiple attachment relationships, but their overall attachment style is a is influenced by all of those relationships.

Colby: 23:31

So one of the reasons why placements, foster placements break down, not least of which is that the children are challenged, potentially overwhelmed, by the expectation of the foster carer around relational closeness, is that they’re carrying around all this attachment baggage for want of a better term from their relationships with their parents and that impacts their capacity to form a new attachment form, an attachment to their current carers, and also it impacts their overall attachment style and those two things interplay with each other.

Colby: 24:12

So you know, I call it the secure ideal. Child protection authorities seem to be relentless in trying to pursue this idea of attachment security, but in the process they often neglect these historical relationships or they may still be contemporary, but they may also be unrepaired, and those relationships do hamper our efforts, I think significantly, to achieve an outcome where children and young people approach life in a well-adjusted way, well, cognitive psychologists would call it mental models or schemas, and that’s how we interpret our worlds, and these kids often have mental models that are distorted in important ways, and partly what therapy is about is working on those mental models and providing new models.

Bruce: 25:09

And uh, and you can’t provide new models.

Colby: 25:12

If kids are changing situations over and over and over again, they, they never get a chance to form them yeah, yeah, and if they’re just putting transference into all of those, there’s a lot of transference going on into all of those new relationships and too often unhelpful counter transference. But one other thing I think you touched on. I just wanted to ask you, before we move on, do you think that residential care, children’s residential care, could be an option of first resort, and under what circumstances do you think Well, I think there are a couple of situations residential care, children’s residential care, could be an option of first resort, and under what circumstances do you think?

Bruce: 25:50

Well, I think there are a couple of situations. You know. If in fact there’s a good chance of going back to the family of origin, residential care is kind of a neutral place to go compared to having to get a brand new family and starting all over again. And residential care under those circumstances might be the best place for kids to be while their family’s getting their act together.

Bruce: 26:17

And so I think that’s one. Another one is the sibling situation, and at Black Mountain I’ve seen situations where we’ve taken in three or four kids at a time and they, for those kids, those sibling relationships, are the most important relationships in their lives, and so that that, I think, is sometimes a good reason to put children in a residential care as a first resort. There may have, you know, there are also, I think, red flags. There are red flags in some kids especially, you know, adolescent, young adolescents, where it’s clear that they don’t want another family and that you’re really putting not only them at risk but the poor foster family at risk. The evidence is that we lose foster care families at a rapid rate and I think it’s oftentimes because of that insensitivity about the nature of that child. And you know, I feel for social workers, social workers around the world they’re too young, they’re too inexperienced, they don’t last think, I think they’re in incredibly difficult situations.

Colby: 27:29

But I think we’ve created some of that difficulty by doing things like saying um, well, residential care is last resort yeah, when indeed it as we’re talking, I mean we’re highlighting some of the, you know, the manifest strengths of residential care, and I know from reading some of the you know the manifest strengths of residential care and I know from reading some of your writing you’ve talked about stability and resources as strengths Wonder if you might tell us a little bit of your thoughts about that.

Bruce: 28:02

Well, you know, this gets complicated because it’s related to what I think has been the stereotype of residential care that has kind of ruled the literature over the last 30 or 40 years. And I think that what they look at is they say that residential care is inherently unstable because the caregivers are coming and going Well in high quality care. That’s not true. In high quality care, where you’re compensating your house parents, for example, well and you’re making their jobs doable and attractive, then you can get long-term stability in relationships. So I think that stereotype has worked against it. If, in fact, the residential care is not providing stability, it is not high quality by definition. It’s not able to provide high quality care Resources.

Bruce: 29:07

I think the most important resource we’ve talked about relationships and those are the most important resources. But I think also there are resources like specific forms of therapy for some kids with particular traumas, but also just basic things like education. One of the things that happens to these young people who’ve been through dozens of placements is they’ve not only changed families, they’ve changed schools, they’ve changed neighborhoods, they’ve changed playgrounds. They with the same group of children and adults is just. For some of them that’s the first time that’s ever happened to them in their lives.

Colby: 29:54

Yeah, yeah, I think you speak compellingly about these aspects of residential care that are strengths and often overlook strengths.

Bruce: 30:07

You’d have to say when the dominant, when the dominant view is that residential care is is the lowest standard of care and the option of last resort well, even related to to foster care, one of the one of the advantages we have at Black Mountain is we we have a campus and we have resources there, and one of the advantages we have at Black Mountain is we have a campus and we have resources there, and one of the things we can do for foster parents is provide them with resources. And one reason that foster care places don’t make it is because the foster parents don’t get enough support. So we’re careful about identifying the parents in the first place, but then we also support them. It may be if it’s very young children.

Bruce: 30:51

it may be something as simple as diapers, providing them with diapers, which are very expensive, or it foster children that they wouldn’t have otherwise, and now they’re getting some of the same experiences as the residential kids are getting and we can also work with them in terms of things like educational planning, vocational planning, and that really helps those foster parents.

Colby: 31:26

Yeah, and what you’re describing is a is a community, a therapeutic community that’s right, that’s right. Yes, that’s that’s right, and you know a lot of, I guess, even just from my own jurisdiction, where I’m most familiar a lot of these things that that we’re talking about just don’t exist in residential care yeah, that’s right, that’s right and so residential. I want to get on to talking a little bit about the research in a moment, but it’s probably worth mentioning beforehand that residential care is a heterogeneous group, just as families are.

Bruce: 32:02

That’s right and worldwide it’s incredibly heterogeneous and some of it’s good and some of it’s bad, and I will say that I have tended to focus on private residential care. I am not in the sense that I’m not sure for profit residential care. I don’t know how you can make a profit in this business. I don’t know how you do it and make a profit, and I haven’t looked closely at for-profit care. I read the newspaper too, and I read the stories about a lot of problems in for-profit residential care, but I just don’t, unless your government is supporting it well or you’re a private, uh organization that has extra support from, from donors. I don’t know how you do it, yeah it’s definitely an.

Colby: 32:59

What we’re talking about is expensive care or at least someone taught me the task about this about whether you call it extensive, sorry, expensive or high cost, though, and no, he was arguing that it’s high. When it’s done well, it’s high cost, expensive kind of has connotations of not being really value for money, but just for image, I guess.

Bruce: 33:26

But yeah, I think the key, key word is value. Uh, I mean, it’s a question of values. Uh, you know, the united states spends billions and billions of dollars on aircraft carriers that float around the the world and in the sea. Uh, we spend enormous amounts of money on betting, on sports activities and lottos and so forth. And it’s a question of you know, where are you putting your money? I don’t think residential care should be the norm for kids who need care. I think it’s going to be relatively rare, but it needs to be one of the options.

Colby: 34:10

And I guess when you say the norm, are you saying that children? Probably it’s not the best place for children to grow to independence so that they spend all their time in care, in residential care.

Bruce: 34:25

Well, again, it depends on the child and the environment, and when we get new youth, when they’re 14 or 15, it may, in fact, be the best place for them to grow to independence. Because we can, we can provide the support in terms of training and support. You know, for years and years in many states in the United States, when a child turned 18 in foster care was basically by it’s been nice knowing you, and for most 18 year olds, the idea that you’re going out on your own without any support, I mean could you have done it? Could I have done it? I mean I can’t imagine it and so that idea was just crazy. So I think the changes in recent years to provide more support for older kids it may be a 15 year old. They need to stay in residential care until they get the skills to be independent. But yes, certainly there are situations where it’s going to be a lot cheaper, more effective, to find a forever home for children, whether it be a really good foster situation that’s going to remain stable or adoption.

Bruce: 35:37

Now I have concerns about adoption. In the United States. We’ve had a tendency to rush to adoption in too many cases and I don’t like the idea that families of origin can be cut off quickly. That shouldn’t happen. If they need to get their act together in order for their child to come back to their house, give them some time for it, because one of the naive aspects of some of the changes that occurred in the last decade was the idea that you can fix families real quick and then send the kids home. I mean that I don’t know who told them that could happen as a psychologist.

Bruce: 36:17

That’s crazy to me yeah, yeah.

Colby: 36:21

So so the issue with residential care, or the I guess the point sorry that we’re that is being made is that, um, there, there needs to be an ongoing, perhaps, assessment of what is the best care arrangement for this person. So, um, so that that can happen at the beginning when children come into care. And what I’m hearing you say is that there shouldn’t be a distinction in relative status between residential care and a family-based care environment. They’re just all part of the care options and they have equal standing and merit because they cater to children who have different needs, the variability of needs, and then, as a child travels through the remaining years of their growing up, their childhood, there can be a continuing assessment of fitness and what is, what is the best placement environment for them. And we need residential care to have the same standing as an option as, uh, as those family-based options.

Bruce: 37:44

That’s what what I’m, I guess, to summarize, yeah the last resort notion came from a belief that residential care was inherently bad for children, and what got me going on and looking at the research was that a law that was passed in the United States in 2018 that said that no federal funds could be used for residential care. And I was the chair of the board of directors at Black Mountain at that time and a reporter called me up and said you know, you’re going to lose significant amount of money here. What are you going to do about it? Now, black Mountain is a faith-based organization and I said we’re a faith-based organization. We’ve been working with kids for a long time. We’re going to find a way to work with these kids and meet their needs.

Bruce: 38:39

Well, I got attacked immediately by a lobbyist in Washington DC who said you people who are spreading this notion about good residential care, that’s phony and I’ve got the research to support it. And he argued that he had three pages of citations of studies that showed that residential care was inherently bad for kids. Well, there I was, a child psychologist and somebody with research background and research methodology and I thought, well, I’m going to take a look at those citations. And that got me in looking at the whole literature. Now it turned out that those three pages of citations didn’t have a single one that supported what he was saying, but it got me into that literature to look at what actually was going on I’m going to come to that in a moment.

Colby: 39:36

But what I would say I mean we, because we’re going to have people who listen to this podcast. Perhaps. Perhaps we’ll get a lot of people who listen who are kind of thinking similarly, but we’re going to have a proportion of people who think that this is nuts. You know, talking positively about residential care. And there is and I know I’ve had, I’ve put, I remember a post I put up about residential care some time ago on LinkedIn and I didn’t get any comments, but one where the person who commented basically said that residential care was basically a repository for adults who engage unlawfully with young people, and they weren’t as vague about it as I just was.

Colby: 40:32

But I think to those people, to those people who are concerned about residential care, I would say that my understanding of what we’re talking about, the message is this that in some instances and for some children, residential care is not a good option. So, in some instances, because residential care is not always the same and there are residential care programs or facilities that do not meet the needs of the children and young people and for other children and young people, that’s not what they need at this time. They need to be, they’re ready and they need to be in a caring family option, or they need to go home to their parents a parent or parents? Yeah, I think so, and I think, think so. It’s a good time to go to the next part of our conversation with the. What does the research actually say about children’s residential care, including in comparison to other care options in out-of-home care?

Bruce: 41:50

Well, you know, I think I started off the book with an early chapter on research methodology, because I think you need to think carefully about this research.

Bruce: 42:03

It’s a messy area and there’s some things that we can’t know, and I think it’s important to keep that in mind.

Bruce: 42:12

I do not think there’s any way to prove that residential care is inherently bad or that it’s good, because of what you were talking about earlier the range of different things we’re talking about, and so definitional issues are really important and I’ll just say up front that I think there’s certain forms of residential care that seem to have consistently been poor, and that’s correctional juvenile justice forms of residential care that seem to have consistently been poor, and that’s that’s correctional, juvenile justice forms of residential care, and I think that’s because they rarely, if ever, use a developmental model, they never really understand the way kids work, and so that all over the world you know juvenile justice interventions in residential care have not worked.

Bruce: 43:03

Now I think that when you look at the research that says residential care is inherently bad, a problem with making that statement is all you have to do is find one, one residential care situation that isn’t bad and then that blows the inherent out of the water, it’s not by its nature, it’s, again, the quality of the care. So, anyway, when I started looking at the literature, it became clear to me that there’s a handful of studies, research studies that have had an enormous impact on the view of residential care, and the single most important one is the study of the so-called Romanian orphans who by?

Bruce: 43:47

the way were not orphans at all. But that study, the Bucharest Early Intervention Project, has just dominated all the talk about residential care for almost 30 years now.

Bruce: 44:06

And it appears over and over and over in the statement, and that was a situation where there was lots of money for research and American researchers, including good researchers from Harvard University, were involved in the research. They’ve published dozens and dozens of journal articles out of it and indeed the care that was given in Bucharest was horrible care and it should never be repeated. But what’s happened is that that research has been generalized. It was, it was research on infants and very young children, and yet it has been generalized to all forms of residential care, for all kinds of different kinds of residential care, for kids of all different ages and backgrounds, and that’s a. That’s a research. No, no ages and backgrounds. And that’s a research? No-no, you don’t generalize from one kind of research to completely different situations, different majors, different kids. I mean it’s just amazing to me that it has been applied so naively. And there are a handful of other studies that have the same problems, have the same problems. There was one that was funded by the Annie Casey Foundation that basically looked for kids or adults who had grown up in bad residential care and interviewed them and said residential care is terrible. I mean it just frankly. It’s researchers not following their own rules.

Bruce: 45:45

Now, on the other hand, I think there’s evidence that it’s not proof. It can’t be proof, but I think there’s strong evidence that good residential care has positive effects. And some of it is just simple survey research, which tends to be. You know, researchers tend to look down their nose at survey research. But if you ask a large number of alumni of residential care about their experiences and they tell you they had good experiences and they never would have preferred foster care, you got to give some attention to that. If you look at simple pre-post studies, kids come in and you look at them when they come in, you look at them when they leave and they get better consistently. Now, that’s not going to prove that it was the program that made them better, but it all suggests that it’s not making them worse. That’s not going to prove that it was the program that made them better, but it all suggests that it’s not making them worse. It’s not.

Bruce: 46:46

So I you know what I did in the book was to was to kind of look at both sides and I looked very critically at both sides and I and I and there is no perfect research. There’s not going to be perfect research, but the evidence is that if you do it well, kids thrive, they do grow. And then in the book I focused on two very different models of residential care the teaching family model, which has behaviorist roots and a lot of people I work with don’t like behaviorist roots but I don’t think the actual application of the behavioral psychology and the teaching family model has been. It’s not Watsonian or Skinnerian, they found out very, very early relationships mattered and that family systems model I think works well.

Bruce: 47:44

And the other is the care model. And, uh, the care model is the out of cornell, out of the uh, uri bronford brother center, and the care model is what fit, uh, what we were doing at black mountain, and so, uh, we adopted that and became one of the care model programs and I think they do a wonderful job. I think they have a very sophisticated theory that combines James Anglin’s work, attachment theory, vygotsky’s work, and they do it in a very sophisticated way and I think that it’s had a power, powerful, positive effect on residential care all around the world, including in australia.

Colby: 48:26

Yeah, yeah, what you were saying there put me in in mind very recent guests, which was, uh, dr laura stickley, who, um you, you would, you would know, who in fact put us together in contact with each other.

Colby: 48:44

And, yeah, she talked about exactly the same thing that when you interview alumni of residential care, more often than not they’ll say that they have a positive opinion of it, and even if they’ve also been in foster care, they’ll report comparatively more positively about their residential care experiences.

Colby: 49:08

It would have to be said, though, that that data may be influenced by the circumstances in which they left foster care and went into residential care, and I think this is it’s that, it’s that level of and I think this is probably what you were, you, you have were saying about just be aware of basic research methodology, and and you had that early in your, you have that early in your book which is that we, we, we need to, to be, we need to be able to critically appraise the research. That um and not not everyone can do that, and that’s why I guess it it’s helpful to have people like you who can do that. To spell it out, um for people, but, um, you know even just what, what I just said, that you’ve got to, you know, understand the circumstance, or turn your mind to the circumstances under which a child might have left foster care to go into residential care, or young person.

Bruce: 50:08

Yeah, you’re really not talking about discrete effects. You’re not talking about what we would call discrete, independent variables. You’re talking about packages. It’s much like studying cultural differences when you’re comparing kids from one culture to another culture. You can’t identify something discrete about those two cultures because you’re dealing with packages. And that’s certainly the case in terms of residential care. And the other thing I think you have to be careful about is the quality issue, because that’s what comes back over and over again is as more important than the site of the care is the quality of the care, and kids can have bad care in every single different situation, and what we need to do is make sure you’re assessing that quality of care is. Make sure you’re assessing that quality of care.

Colby: 51:02

Yeah, yeah, you’ve mentioned your book a number of times. You’ve mentioned I don’t mean that in a bad way, but you’ve mentioned it. It’s one of the reasons why I was really keen to speak to you. What can people expect to get out of reading uh, access and reading the book, and how? How do you think it would influence practice in this space?

Bruce: 51:30

uh, you know I I did not push the book for the first year and a half because the hardback version was ridiculously expensive.

Bruce: 51:38

So I didn’t suggest anybody buy it, and so now it’s in paperback and you can buy it on sale sometimes and it’s more reasonably priced. But I think some of the other things I’ve written in journal articles would get the message across, and I often just give references to open access articles because they can get the basics. James Anglin, who has had a big influence on me, and anybody who knows residential care knows James’ name, and James said that the main purpose for my book should be that anybody writing a grant proposal to get support for residential care should put it in the appendix, and that’s basically why I wrote it. I wrote it because I felt like those who do residential care, those who see it as having a positive impact, were getting a bad press and I wanted to clear that up. And so you know, I think the major purpose of the book was to make that point. Now I do think that and this happened to me when I talked I was giving in Calgary, canada, last year a young woman came up to me and had actually bought the expensive hardback and she said that she she had, she was running a program there in Canada and she said what she had picked up from the book and which I was delighted to hear, was a better idea about what quality care is, and I think if people can can read that book and take that away.

Bruce: 53:21

I’m delighted because I think that’s such an important issue. It is the issue, the issue of providing quality care, and I think the reason you know, I don’t think there’s a mystery here. I think the research shows what high quality care is. It’s a matter of picking the people who are going to provide it carefully. It’s a matter of training them carefully, it’s a matter of supporting them carefully, providing the resources they need and the kids need, and then providing that stability. And I think that if you do that, you can provide quality care. Now it’s easy to provide bad quality care. There’s so many different ways of doing it and you do have to go into it. I think, thinking that this is an expensive form of care. And I say in the book, in the conclusion of the book, one of my conclusions is that residential care is expensive and it should be. We owe it to these kids. Society has not supported these kids well up to now and we’re going to pay for it and we should pay for it.

Colby: 54:30

I think that’s a really good point and it puts me in mind of an earlier guest who came into residential care from economics and who was very interested in human capital, the notions of human capital Graham Kerridge was his name, if you wanted to look back and I think that residential care done well, I think that residential care done well, just as is the case with other forms of out-of-home care, is an investment not only in the future of that young person, but their children and their children’s children. That’s right, and I do think that when you view residential care as an option of last resort, I wonder whether you know, like I wonder, whether a certain amount of that argument comes from the funders. Because of the cost yes, because of the cost they don’t want kids to be in residential care.

Bruce: 55:37

It’s bad for them, which also confounded with with the fact that it is also expensive yeah, there’s no question about that, that that happens, and and I think that, um, one of the reasons they get legislators on board for, uh, pulling the support from residential care is exactly that. And they said you know, it’s cheaper to keep kids in families. Well, no kidding. But the question is what’s the long term impact and what’s it going to cost society in the long term if we’re not careful? One of the things that’s happened because of the last resort thinking is that and the lack of foster care placements is there’s some strong stress on keeping kids in their families of origin, sometimes to the point where that’s dangerous.

Bruce: 56:34

And they’re doing it in situations where that’s dangerous. So there’s a writer, Naomi Riley, who writes about this regularly and what she’s pointed out is that when you increase the number of kids who are going back to their families of origin, abuse and deaths go up. Yeah.

Colby: 56:54

Well, that’s sobering.

Colby: 56:57

As a practitioner myself for 30 years working in child protection and related endeavor, one of the one of the the challenges that practitioners like me have is is that the state is a is a relatively poor carer and it’s a bit of a case of out of the frying pan into the fire for a lot of our young people, unfortunately, and I think you know, our legislators and our services have got a big job ahead of them to address the quality this, the quality of, of all forms of out of home care I mean state care, or the care if you’re in the care of the state. That should be a haven, that should be a sanctuary for the children that should be a safe place to grow up and too often we owe that to them yeah, yeah, have you ever said

Bruce: 57:58

that no, you go well, I, I think you know the foster, foster parent situation is we we don’t give, typically, we do not give nearly enough support to foster parents. Um and and if, if you’re serious about making uh, foster care work, we’ve got to do a better job of supporting foster parents.

Colby: 58:19

Yeah yeah, yeah, bruce, it looks like the sun’s going down where you are, the it’s getting darker and darker. It’s getting dark. You’re right. I don’t know if you wanted to pause for a moment and put a light on I can put, I can put a light on does that help? That’s different. We’ll wait for that. There you go.

Bruce: 58:45

Now the camera is focusing in on you again well, I I was going to do this outside on my, on my deck, overlooking the mountains, but, uh, they were predicting, uh, um, thunderstorms, so I I decided to go inside.

Colby: 58:57

I I well, we talked last time. You, I think you were out on the deck.

Bruce: 59:02

Oh was I.

Colby: 59:02

Yeah, there were thunderstorms predicted then too. You were in a very stormy place, it seems. Yes, yeah, I can predict that, on the basis of N equals 2. Both times I’ve spoken to you.

Bruce: 59:13

Well, we live in what’s known as a temperate rainforest.

Colby: 59:18

Yes.

Bruce: 59:18

And we are in the wettest portion of the United States east of the Mississippi.

Colby: 59:24

Wow, yeah, yeah, well, there you go. Well, there you go. I mean, my prediction was true based on a sample there you go. Sometimes it works. Bruce, if you were sitting down in front of legislators, what would you say to them about residential care?

Bruce: 59:42

in a nutshell, Well, we’ve talked about some of the things I would say to them. In fact, I have written to to as a written witness, to a number of of legislative groups and what I, what I say, is good residential care needs to be available and it needs to be an option, and not an option of last resort, but an option that takes into consideration the child’s needs. And one of the problems we’ve had in the United States and I’ve told legislators this over and over again they use the term family first and I think that’s wrong. I think the Danes have it correct. In Denmark, they don’t say family first, they say children first.

Colby: 1:00:32

And.

Bruce: 1:00:32

I think that’s the attitude that we need to take, and so what we need to do to have children thrive. They’re the ones that don’t have the power, they’re the ones that don’t have the voice, they’re the ones that get pushed around, and when you say family first, and what you really mean is parents, adults first, that’s not a good approach.

Colby: 1:00:55

No, no, yeah, finally, I’ve asked you a lot of questions, bruce. Was there anything that you’d like to ask me before we wrap up?

Bruce: 1:01:06

yeah, um, um. Australia was a place a few years ago that said we’re going to do away with all residential care. That’s the dream, and the dream’s been realized, and then things seem to have turned around pretty quickly. What’s your take on what happened?

Colby: 1:01:27

Well, I can’t really speak authoritatively for what’s happened in other states of South Australia. I’m in South Australia. We had what’s called a Royal Commission in our political environment, which is based on the British one, a Royal Commission and I’m probably not going to give a great description of it, but it’s like a very high level judicial inquiry into an issue. It’s called by the government of the day, it tends to take a period of time and it’s an investigation of an issue of great importance to the body politic, and then recommendations are made and it’s usually around things that have gone wrong. We had one in relation to child protection systems and an outcome of that was that, well, one of the things that flowed on from that was there was this idea reinforced that residential care is inherently bad, excuse me. And so we did have congregate residential care units. They’ve been closed down. Residential care units they’ve been closed down. I think almost all of them have been closed down, at least the state-run ones.

Colby: 1:02:48

And there was pressure in the last few years to move children out of residential care arrangements and, in particular, temporary residential care arrangements, which they were referred to as emergency care.

Colby: 1:03:05

And there remains this um, this idea that that residential care is bad and and that we should have all children out of residential care. And indeed our minister, or her staff has, has, you know, talks in posts on social media about we funded this program or that program and we saved children from residential care. I can’t quote you the figures, but residential care hasn’t gone away, and though the state or the government-run child protection agency tried to divest itself of residential care to independent providers, they have ended up having to maintain their own residential care program. I don’t know if it’s expanding or static. I don’t know if it’s expanding or static, I just know that it’s not been successfully gotten rid of. And I think you won’t. You won’t, and I think there’s very good reasons, as we’ve outlined in this conversation, for why residential care needs to be part of the picture. So it’s almost like the tail wagging the dog, in a way.

Bruce: 1:04:23

Yeah, yeah.

Colby: 1:04:28

The need is right in front of people’s faces. There needs to be this option. You can’t get rid of it. What you, rather, should be focused on is how do you make it better? How do you improve?

Bruce: 1:04:44

it. Quality is the issue. Quality of care is what it’s all about. I know that the people at Cornell in the care model have spent a lot of time in Australia and a lot of Australian programs have adopted the care model and I think that’s a real positive outcome because I think if you really do take the care model seriously, you can provide high quality care. Yeah, yeah.

Colby: 1:05:22

Well, Bruce, it’s been a real privilege to be able to have tracked you down and had this conversation.

Bruce: 1:05:27

Well, I have a low social media presence and that’s intentional, but I’m not hiding from anybody I know.

Colby: 1:05:34

But look to be honest. Last weekend it’s Father’s Day here tomorrow, tomorrow, sunday’s Father’s Day here tomorrow. Tomorrow, sunday, it’s Friday here, but one of my sons is going away tomorrow. So we celebrated. Last weekend. I barely picked up my phone and looked at social media and, gee, it was nice to do that. But thank you for taking the time to speak with us.

Bruce: 1:06:00

I’ve enjoyed talking with you. It’s been a fun conversation, awesome, thank you.

Unlocking Potential Through Love and Acceptance, with Patricia Sheridan

Children Need Adults Who Believe in Their Possibilities

Patricia Sheridan’s journey in transforming children’s services in Scotland is nothing short of remarkable. As founder of the Moore House Group, her story begins with a simple yet powerful observation: that children in residential care were not having their potential recognized or nurtured. This realization came when, as a social worker, she was tasked with evaluating residential services across Scotland. What she found was deeply troubling – establishments where staff had little belief in the children’s capabilities, with no drive to measure outcomes or create compensatory curricula for young people struggling with trauma and disadvantage.

Rather than simply filing her report, Patricia took up her director’s challenge to “do something about it” and founded Moore House School in 1988. Her vision was revolutionary for its time: to create an environment where children experienced love, acceptance, and a genuine belief in their potential. This language of care was so uncommon in Scotland at that time that Patricia describes feeling like “a lone voice in the wilderness.” She had to build a network of like-minded professionals who shared her values to support her through the initial challenges.

The growth of the Moore House Group over 38 years reflects Patricia’s commitment to meeting children’s needs in comprehensive ways. From the original residential school serving children with trauma histories and attachment challenges, the organization expanded to include a foster care service (recognizing that institutional care shouldn’t be the only option for children) and later the Jane Moore Trust Trust, a school dedicated to supporting neurodiverse children. Throughout this expansion, Patricia maintained a consistent philosophy: every child has potential that can be unlocked through the right relationships and environment.

What makes Patricia’s approach particularly noteworthy is her emphasis on organizational culture and shared learning. She describes how the entire Moore House “family” – from teachers to care staff to foster carers – receives the same training in attachment theory and trauma-informed approaches. This creates a common language and understanding across all parts of the organization. Patricia herself models lifelong learning, having pursued advanced degrees in education and forensic psychology while leading the organization, demonstrating to staff and children alike the value of continuous growth and development.

Patricia’s approach to neurodiverse children further illustrates her belief that while specific needs may vary, the foundational principles remain the same. Children with neurodiversity, like those with trauma histories, benefit from environments where they feel understood, valued, and supported. The trauma these children experience may come from different sources – educational establishments failing to recognize their needs rather than socioeconomic disadvantage – but the healing process still centers on relationships and belief in potential.

Perhaps most poignant is Patricia’s reflection on how Scotland’s approach to childcare has evolved over her career. The language she once felt isolated for using – speaking of love, relationships, and children’s potential – is now embraced across Scotland’s childcare landscape. The “Promise” initiative she mentions represents a national focus on children’s voices in decision-making and supporting families to nurture their children effectively. While challenges remain, particularly in shifting focus from damage control to prevention, Patricia expresses optimism about the direction of children’s services in Scotland.

The conversation concludes with a profound insight that applies across all educational and care settings: relationships are the vehicle for all healing. Despite the perception that children who have experienced trauma are defensive and difficult to connect with, Patricia emphasizes that establishing meaningful relationships with these children is both possible and essential. By helping children feel worthy, capable, and adequate just as they are, we create the conditions for them to flourish – transforming “impossible” into “I’m possible,” as Patricia so eloquently puts it.

You can listen here:

You can watch here:

About Patricia:

Mrs Sheridan established Moore House School in 1988. Her drive was to create a service with her personal mantras “Determined to Deliver Excellence” and “I’m Possible” for young people.

Mrs Sheridan leads the Board of Directors and continues to have a hands-on approach using a range of experiences and techniques to engage with young people to elicit their views on the service they are receiving. Her passion is for young people to be supported by adults who believe in their potential and adults who share the organisational values of respect, integrity and dignity for all.

Mrs Sheridan reminds us that we are responsible for creating trusting relationships and happy memories for our young people. She strives to ensure that our young people experience as many creative, happy, nurturing memories as possible.

Mrs Sheridan continues to strive for excellence and ensures that her passion for high quality services is cascaded throughout the organisation to encourage each and every team member to recognise the important part they play in the wellbeing and progress that our young people experience.

Related Podcast Interviews:

Dr Kiran Modi

Listen here:

Watch here:

Lighthouse Foundation:

Listen here:

Watch Here:

Transcript:

Colby: 0:00

Welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Mrs Sheridan: 0:04

And I think for me it was important that I created something that I hadn’t found in Scotland, but I’m delighted to say it’s a language that we use now, a language of love and acceptance and belief in the potential of children, and that we don’t need to be embarrassed about using that language, which 30, 40 years ago, you were shunned for using that language.

Colby: 0:32

Welcome to the Secure Start podcast. I’m Colby Pearce, and joining me for this episode is a British Care Awards winner and inspirational leader and founder in the field of children’s services. Before I introduce my guest, I’d like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land that I’m meeting on, the Kaurna people of the Adelaide Plains, and the continuing connection the living Kaurna people feel to land, waters, culture and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. My guest this episode is Patricia Sheridan.

Colby: 1:20

Mrs Sheridan established Moore House in 1988.

Colby: 1:25

Her drive was to create a service with her personal mantras, determined to deliver excellence and I’m possible for young people.

Colby: 1:42

Mrs Sheridan leads the board of directors and continues to have a hands-on approach, using a range of experiences and techniques to engage with young people to elicit their views on the service they are receiving. Her passion is for young people to be supported by adults who believe in their potential and adults who share the organisational values of respect, integrity and dignity for all. Mrs Sheridan reminds us that we are responsible for creating trusting relationships and happy memories for our young people. She strives to ensure that our young people experience as many creative, happy, nurturing memories as possible In terms of her career journey, mrs Sheridan has gathered a range of qualifications she was a registered general and mental health nurse, a qualified social worker and, at a later date, completed an MA in Education and an MSc in Forensic Psychology. Mrs Sheridan continues to strive for excellence and ensures that her passion for high-quality services is cascaded throughout the organisation to encourage each and every team member to recognise the important part they play in the wellbeing and progress that our young people experience. Welcome, patricia.

Mrs Sheridan: 3:14

Good morning. It’s lovely to speak to you again, Colby.

Colby: 3:19

Thank you. So was there anything in that bio that you’d like to expand a little bit upon or add to?

Mrs Sheridan: 3:30

Not really. I think that when I hear it from someone else it sounds a bit pretentious and I can’t believe the journey that I’ve been on. It made sense while I was doing it, but I think it reflects that I’m a lady of age. So, no, I have to accept that’s my journey.

Colby: 3:53

Yeah, and it’s a common reflection when I ask people after I’ve read their bio, particularly when they’ve read it. They’ve been working in the field for such a long time and I think and I was discussing this with another podcast guest only last week reflecting on my own long journey of practice and thinking that perhaps, as we’re doing it, our mind and our focus is on what we’re doing, you know, right now, as it should be, and it’s only when we have these opportunities to pause and reflect that we have a chance to consider the journey in its entirety and how yeah, how long a journey, or how much we’ve achieved across that journey. Indeed. So, patricia, you started Moore House in 1988, Moore House School in 1988. And since then, your operations have expanded into the Moore House Group. I wonder if you don’t mind just to start off with telling us a little bit about each of the areas of endeavour that come under the umbrella of the Moore House Group.

Mrs Sheridan: 5:14

Yes, as you said, colby, my first venture was Moore House School and it was intended to be a small residential and day service for children who had experienced trauma and who were showing attachment challenges. But over the 38 years it has become a school for 32 young people with 14 houses attached to the hub, and it ranges from primary education through to college. So that was my first attempt at trying to show what I believed was the right approach in working with children. I then decided that, because I didn’t believe that children should necessarily be an institutional experience for all of their residential education, I decided to create a foster care service, and my foster care service has become known as permanency and short term, as permanency and short-term, and again, it was intended to work with children with trauma histories. But, like I’m sure you and other people will experience, it takes on a life of its own and it’s become quite a varied group of foster carers.

Mrs Sheridan: 7:05

We have up to 50 foster carers who work with babies up to a young gentleman who is 33, with very complex needs and a special group of conditions that we had never experienced before. So for me, establishing the foster care service seemed to make sense at the time. But it’s grown into a unique organisation on its own and I’m very proud that we in fact are the only organisation in Scotland who has the highest grades of the care inspectorate, and we’ve managed to hold that for two years. So I don’t often allow myself to be very proud, but in that instance I certainly am.

Mrs Sheridan: 8:02

The third organisation that I created was the Jane Moore Trust, and it’s a charity, and it came about because there was a school in Scotland that had closed and it was a school that was working with children with neurodiverse challenges, and so it’s my nature when I get a challenge to try and do something about it. So five years ago we decided that we would open the school again. So we now have a school that works with children who have experience of neurodiverse issues. It’s a small school and we have both primary and secondary children. It has taken quite a time to get established, but we’re beginning to show evidence of our reputation, beginning to expand the pupil numbers. We are registered with the National Association for Autism and again, that for me is a reflection of the quality of what the team’s doing. So, yes, three organisations that keep me busy, but organisations that I’m very proud of and organisations that seem to have made sense to me each time that we established and added on the next organisation. It’s been an interesting journey.

Colby: 9:39

Yeah, it certainly has. What set you on this path, would you say? How did you come to be involved in?

Mrs Sheridan: 9:48

Yeah, I started I was in social work and my director in the local authority asked me to do a report on the residential services that the local authority was using, and so I visited about 12 residential services in Scotland and then I did my report and what I found was really quite sad and disappointing, and I found that the pupils that were in these residential establishments clearly came from a socioeconomic group where families were struggling with poverty and difficulty was that the staff in some of these organisations did not have a belief in the potential of these children and there seemed to be an acceptance that these children couldn’t achieve and there was no drive to measure outcomes or to create a curriculum that would compensate for the difficulties that the young people were bringing into the education field.

Mrs Sheridan: 11:13

And so I had a conversation about the report with my director and, of course, knowing me, he said well, if that’s your findings, I challenge you to do something about it. So I took the challenge on, and my first organisation that I created was Moore House School, and I think for me it was important that I created something that I hadn’t found in Scotland and I wanted to start speaking a language that wasn’t used at that time in Scotland, but I’m delighted to see it’s a language that we use now, a language of love and acceptance and belief in the potential of children. So that was my starting point in working in the residential education sector.

Colby: 12:07

And he lost an employee as well. I’m thinking, pardon, I’m thinking that he lost an employee as well. Your supervisor at the time, who challenged him yes, was he anticipating that he would lose you from the organisation? Yes yes, he was yeah.

Mrs Sheridan: 12:28

Yes, he was a wonderful gentleman and he knew his team, so he knew me obviously.

Colby: 12:39

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So the Moore House School was a residential school. You brought together both a desire to house the young people in a more positive and encouraging way and also to deliver to them education opportunities that focused on unlocking their potential.

Mrs Sheridan: 13:15

Yes, very much so.

Colby: 13:17

And it reminds me very much of an earlier podcast that I had with John Whitwell and I’m not sure if you’ve heard it, but, um, he was talking about the uh, the cotswold community and, um, and he was talking at this point of the podcast particularly about donald winnicott, I think, and and winnicott seeing children as being like bulbs, the growth is within them. You just need to create an environment around them that unlocks that, that allows for that and facilitates that.

Mrs Sheridan: 13:57

Yeah, Very much so yes.

Colby: 14:00

And were there any particular challenges that you’d had along the way in terms of setting up the Moore House School?

Mrs Sheridan: 14:10

Yes, I think the first challenge that I struggled with was there wasn’t a landscape of talking about children in terms of trauma and attachment, and at that time the landscape was very much about control of children, and so I found it difficult a peer group of people, of like-minded people, and so it was a struggle but I thankfully managed to draw together consultants who had the respectability in the field in general, and it was about building a network of people that could share and did share my values and supported me when the going got tough, because sometimes when you’re a lone voice in the wilderness, it can be difficult. So I think the first thing was drawing a peer group together to give me sustenance. That was the first point. The second point, inevitably, was the challenge of being a new entity and not being known and having to establish a reputation. So that threw up financial challenges.

Mrs Sheridan: 15:47

I tell the story of when I first started. We didn’t have a lot of money and I had to go to the bank manager and ask to borrow money to buy a car, which I didn’t buy. The car I had to use the money to pay the wages. So there were early challenges, financial challenges but through time we became established and I think that I was very fortunate that as our reputation grew, so we got the confidence of local authorities and our numbers increased to a place where we became a viable organisation. So it was yes, I wouldn’t say it was a challenge, but it certainly.

Colby: 16:38

It took some courage and energy, but we got there yeah, it’s interesting because you’re not you’re not the first um founder that I’ve spoken to and that who has, um, almost uh, intimated that um, the first priority is to go in the direction that you you wish to go in terms of setting up a service, and you’ve almost got to.

Colby: 17:06

Well, you can hope and pray, I guess, but you’ve got to believe that, as long as you provide and deliver a professional service, a needed service, the money will take care of itself, or the money will follow, and yes, I’ve heard that experience from others, and certainly that’s the way I have practiced for a very long time in my independent practices, the focus being on just the delivery of a professional service and the money will, will, take care of itself. It doesn’t always, though, does it? Yeah, but in the end, perhaps inevitably, yeah, it does, and I really like what you were saying about needing a group of peers, bringing together a group of peers, and the logical implication of that being that even founders and directors of services need to have a reflective group to talk to, to reflect on the work that they do and offer feedback and be offered feedback and guidance.

Colby: 18:31

Yeah heads of organisations I think it’s been the consensus view of other people I’ve spoken to as well should be getting that kind of reflective mentoring, peer mentoring and, if not, full supervision. Yeah, definitely yes.

Mrs Sheridan: 18:53

I think that you can become isolated and I think it’s important that you have the humility to recognise that you may have a passion and you may have a belief, but you need to be open and available for positive criticism if we’re going to grow. If I needed to grow as an individual and the organisations to grow, so we had to have an open and transparent approach to our practice and a willingness to listen to people who had a lot more experience and that had a valuable contribution to make.

Colby: 19:41

And you mentioned that you gathered them from around the place. I’m wondering where did you find them and how do you think what were some of? I guess a bit of a question without notice, but what do you think were some of the more important things that they shared with you that informed your approach to the Moore House school?

Mrs Sheridan: 20:04

Yes, I think the very important relationship for me was that it may come with age, colby, but I was very much into the John Bobies, the John Ashcroft, all these theories of attachment that were not around and being spoken about and used in the early days, and I knew that I wanted my team to be trained and to have a real understanding of what I was trying to convey to them about how we should work with children. And I came across Dan Hughes in America and it sounds a bit pretentious, but I did go over to America to do his DDP attachment course and I just felt at home. For me it was the answer, it was the way that I wanted my staff to understand the work that I was trying to do. So I did the course with Dan in New York, actually came back to Scotland and then I met several of his team who worked both in England and Scotland, and the first person that I established contact with was Edwina Grant, who in fact was the Scottish director for Dan’s DDP organisation.

Mrs Sheridan: 21:49

And Edwina came into our organisation and started to help to introduce the DDP approach and she stayed with us for a number of years and has only recently retired, and so we became an organisation, with Edwina’s support, to start and roll out DDP in Scotland, and we still now offer DDP training to any of the organisations in Scotland that feel that that’s the theoretical approach that they want to use.

Mrs Sheridan: 22:29

So Edwina and Dan’s model theoretical model for me was a really helpful training module that I could use for the team to understand my approach. And so from working with Edwina it’s really been about me going out probably more often doing courses myself, and I came across a course in Ireland with Patrick Tomlinson, so I couldn’t miss that opportunity. So I did a course of which Patrick was a contributor, and then again I established links with Patrick and he now again works with the organisation, and so I’ve been really fortunate in that I’ve been able to be introduced to some really important, impressive, impressionable people impressive people, rather, that for me speak the same language and have the same values and the same passion for getting it right for children. So I’ve been really lucky, and our organisation’s been lucky in the people that have come alongside us and support us to make sure that we get it right for children.

Colby: 23:59

And I chuckled a little bit there, because Patrick is a mutual colleague and something of a silent partner for this podcast, in that he puts me together with some of our guests, including with you, patricia. One of the things that I think is really significant about what you were saying there is that you go and you yourself go and get trained. You attend the trainings, you, and then you. You have a strong desire for those trainings that you think speak to you and how you want your organisation to operate and run and the care and service delivery you want staff to deliver to children. You have them all trained in the same models and theories theories, um, but.

Colby: 25:08

But the interesting thing is that, by the sound of it, it’s from the top to I hate saying from the top to the bottom. It sounds terrible, doesn’t it really? Everyone in the organization is gets the same training so everyone can speak the same language and, importantly from the point of view of the children and young people that you deliver a service to, notwithstanding that everyone’s got their own unique traits and characteristics, there’s a foundation of commonality across your staff group, which I think is really important and can be. It doesn’t always exist, for example, in statutory child protection organisations, where you know large organisations but where you wouldn’t. We wouldn’t commonly see everyone, all the staff group, singing from the same hymn sheet, so to speak. But I agree, I think that’s a really valuable thing. And it’s not just I think. Another previous podcast guest, simon Benjamin, who ran the Lighthouse Foundation here in Victoria and also had worked in the Mulberry Bush School in the UK, spoke really authoritatively about the importance of everyone being on the same page. Yes, yeah, so that’s great.

Mrs Sheridan: 26:48

I think you’re right, colby.

Mrs Sheridan: 26:49

I think the importance is that everyone needs to be invested in, and everyone, if you’re saying we all have a part to play they have to understand what that part is and they have to feel valued and they have to have the confidence to contribute to the care of the children.

Mrs Sheridan: 27:13

And so for me, it’s important that we do all have the same training, and I think that was my drive. When I started, I realized that I did not have all of the skills and theoretical knowledge that I needed, and so that’s why I did my master’s in education and then went on to do my master’s in forensic psychology, for two reasons One I wanted the staff to recognise that we all need to be in a learning environment and that we don’t always have the answers, but to encourage staff to believe and to convey to children that lifelong learning is something that we should all aspire to and that it’s so valuable for both the children and for staff. And so for me, I thought, by showing an example, although it was hard sometimes finding the time, but it was about setting, you know, setting the scene and having staff understand that we’re all on this journey together, journey of learning together that you started from a place of I’m not quite sure if I know what I need to know and have the skills that I need to have.

Colby: 28:37

So you started from a reflective position.

Mrs Sheridan: 28:41

Yes.

Colby: 28:45

A reflective and self-awareness, self-evaluation, self-awareness and, I would imagine, as part of life, lifelong learning. Encouraging that, embodying that in ourselves, encouraging it in others, has as part of it an ongoing reflection of what about what? What do I know and what do I need to know? Next, and I think that that’s been again another theme of this podcast and something that I’ve said previously and stand by, is that we need to think about what we’re doing. In this area of work.

Colby: 29:25

Thinking about it can be hard I had Nicola O’Sullivan on and she was talking about how the work can be so confronting, so challenging in some ways, that it can impact our capacity to think but we need to be thinking about what we’re doing. If we stop thinking about it, we become procedural, yes, and when we become procedural, we apply a one-size-fits-all, regardless of who’s in front of us. And procedural practice can be hard, can lack heart, can, in fact, be heartless practice. Yes, yeah, and I just wanted to make the point, in case people missed it, that the Moore House School is a residential school. The children I’m not sure if you have day students as well.

Mrs Sheridan: 30:22

I think you do, don’t you?

Colby: 30:23

Yes, but you also have children who live in those homes that you mentioned, with staff, and I’m imagining that there is also the word I’m looking for. It’s getting late in the day for me, so the words don’t come as easy. Here it is, I’ve got it. We’re going to cut that bit out. So I imagine that there’s alignment between home and school, there’s concordance, there’s congruence between home and school.

Mrs Sheridan: 31:01

Yes, the team in the homes do go into the school and work alongside children, and I have a psychological service team and what they do is they work both with the house, families and the teaching team and together they work out what we call a children’s plan, and so there’s the multidisciplinary focus on the needs of the children and we also ensure teachers, care staff and our psychological services team do the same training.

Mrs Sheridan: 31:50

So there’s relationships that build up through these opportunities and there is good communication between the multidisciplinary aspects of our team. And I think the biggest challenge for the teams in the houses is that you assume that there’s confidence in terms of education for care staff, but some of our care staff struggle because they themselves had difficulties when they were in school, and so what we encourage is some of our care staff, if there’s a subject that they’re not confident in, that they will get alongside a child and the two of them will do the learning together, and it’s quite refreshing when you see the adult and the child trying to learn something that the care staff member may not necessarily be confident about. It’s nice to watch that experience.

Colby: 32:53

That’s wonderful. Yeah, as you were talking about that, I could just imagine the emotional congruence between the staff member and the child. You know the emotional connection from having that shared learning experience, which is really important for our children in need. And yeah, it sounds like just a wonderful therapeutic way of delivering aligned care across both the home and the school. And I’m wondering if your psychology service provide a therapeutic service to some of the children as well.

Mrs Sheridan: 33:41

Yes, Children can have one-to-one interventions, working with things like grief and attachment, and that’s usually alongside, when it’s appropriate, alongside the key care staff member. We attach a key staff member for each young person in a therapeutic pathway and it’s interesting to see how relationships are established and how passionate the key workers can become if a meeting’s cancelled or, you know, if there’s something important for the child. It’s interesting when you watch the two disciplines working together when there’s a need for the child that the other discipline doesn’t recognise. So yes, there’s a passion on both sides. It’s lovely.

Colby: 34:46

Yeah, it’s wonderful when you were talking at the beginning about the Moore House group, I was also thinking about the allied health team that you across the three organisations.

Mrs Sheridan: 35:18

And we normally use as much as possible community-based services in terms of health, and I think that’s important for the young people when they go back into their own community, that it builds up confidence to allow them to use community services. So we don’t cover all of the requirements in terms of health and we try to use any community-based services and it’s about the dentist, the doctor, the optician trying to help children to grow in confidence to use those services as and when they go back home.

Colby: 35:55

Right, fantastic and not being contented. Contented is probably not the right word, but moving, not finding the challenges of having a residential school enough. You then set up a foster care service. You said that you did that because you believe that children shouldn’t grow up in all of their years in a. You said the word institutional or residential care environment is what I understood you to be referring to. So were there any unique challenges, I guess, or different challenges involved in setting up a foster care service?

Mrs Sheridan: 36:43

I think it’s the same challenges as you find in terms of recruiting staff challenges as you find in terms of recruiting staff and it’s about finding foster carers who are resilient and who are open to training and are able to recognise that the challenge that they face could be quite complex.

Mrs Sheridan: 37:10

And so it was about working in partnership and we encouraged our foster carers to come to any training that’s available within any of the three organisations and we trained our foster carers in the attachment model. And it’s about, for me, stickability making sure that our foster carers have access to social work. Our social work team, our social work team carries small numbers of carers so that they can be available to carers more often than probably the local authority foster carers are able to get support. So it’s about consistency and it’s about encouraging carers to understand the very challenging role that they’re taking on. So in our organisation, we have had foster carers and still have foster carers that have been with us for over 25 years, so some of them have got stickability, but I think that the landscape in terms of the needs of children haven’t changed. I think the language has changed, but I still think the needs of children and the challenge that they bring, I think is the same as when I started nearly 40 years ago.

Colby: 38:47

So yeah, I’m very proud very proud, very proud yes, indeed you should be. And and so the fossil again, we, the, the organization as it’s grown, um continues to be aligned, uh, across all its component parts, that they have a shared values, their shared values, their shared knowledge. There’s a shared language, everyone can speak to each other and um and you, you’ve, you’ve deliberately gone about choosing um interested parties to become foster carers, who themselves are also, I guess, interested in being lifelong learners and continuing to unlock their own potential. That just reminds me again of the idea that what we do with our children we need to do across the organisation. So when we highlighted before in the bio, I first mentioned that what you wanted was an organisation that saw the potential in children and supported advancing that potential or creating the right growing conditions for that potential.

Colby: 40:15

It’s important that we do that for our staff, our volunteers, our foster carers. We do that for everything, everyone, because they get to feel it’s a bit like going to training and being inspired by training. If you’re the managing director and founder, you get inspired, and everyone else, you see the value in everyone else being inspired Very much so, yeah, so having your potential acknowledged and developed feels great and flows perhaps quite naturally into supporting the potential of the children as well, so that’s a very important and key value of your organisation.

Mrs Sheridan: 41:08

Yes.

Colby: 41:09

Yeah.

Mrs Sheridan: 41:09

And I think we’ve needed to use the language like families and again, throughout the years, we know when we speak to each other, I hear staff talking about the Moore House family, which I smile at, and the other kind of way that I describe foster carers is and care staff and teachers. I talk about them being professional, and so that implies a professional responsibility and implies the standards and values that we all need to share and the importance of each person within the family, because you just can’t attach someone onto the organisation. They have to be living and feel that they’re part of this living organisation, and so they have to grow as we grow, and so I think when I started, I really it’s over time that I’ve understood the importance of language, but it’s beginning to reap rewards so many years later.Colby: 42:28

Yeah, and I love the fact that I imagine that everyone feels like they’re on the same level across the family, and I think that’s also really important. And then, as if the challenges of running a residential school and a foster care agency were not enough, you’ve established the Jane Moore Trust and taken on the role of the school for children, neurodiverse children and young people, and I guess I mean I could ask you were the challenges or what are the influences there for the service that you’re providing for that part of the organisation?

Mrs Sheridan: 43:39

I think, to be honest, it was a steep learning curve for me. I hadn’t really had a lot of experience in working with children with neurodiverse challenges. I knew that I wanted to establish the same culture, and so I think that there were elements of our culture that were easily put into place in the new school easily put into place in the new school. One of the challenges that we faced was that the previous school had to close with very short notice, and so the first real challenge was to establish relationships with families and to build their confidence, and what I found was that we were actually dealing with trauma in the families that came back to us, and so there was a lot of work there in trying to establish that we were staying and that we would be reliable, and once we got that platform established, it was slow growth. I mean, we’ve been doing this for five years, and my first important step was to get accreditation and make sure that the team had all the knowledge and expertise that these children would need us to have, and, as I say, I did not have a lot of experience. I had to pull in experts.

Mrs Sheridan: 45:27

I was very fortunate in that two of the consultants from the school that had been there prior to us opening, stayed with us and again were very passionate and appeared to recognize where our drive was coming from, and so they stood alongside us and are still standing with us.

Mrs Sheridan: 45:52

And we tried to get accreditation through the National Association for Autism, and for me that was the kind of checklist of professional growth and expertise, and when we achieved that, it was the tick box. Yes, we’re doing it the way that we should and we’re still small numbers, but our reputation has become national rather than Scottish, and so we have referrals from England and Scotland, and most of our referrals are coming from word of mouth, from local authorities that are telling other local authorities the success that we’re having with with some of their children. But it’s still a learning curve for me. There’s still something different, um, different. I think children’s needs are the same, but I do think that, yes, they’re a unique, wonderful group of different behaviours that I’ve not come across prior to opening the school, but they challenge us in a different way. But it’s refreshing.

Colby: 47:10

Perhaps they come to the school in different circumstances. You might say Very much so. And there are, yeah, and that there are. They have their differences, but there’s a lot of. There’s still children and young people with needs, and there’s a lot of similarity as well as diversity. And the thought that was going through my mind, Patricia, was those consultants that stayed on the teaching staff that you have at the school. On what basis do they also stand in the Moore House family, so to speak?

Mrs Sheridan: 47:58

The training that we do is across the three organisations, so it offers the opportunity for establishing professional and personal relationships. So that’s the foundation of the relationship. The teaching team have some elements of training that inevitably are different, but we all train in terms of understanding trauma and attachment, because for me, trauma does not necessarily come from socio-economical challenges. It comes from experiences and for these children, their trauma came from their educational establishments not recognising their needs and not meeting their needs. So there are threads that go throughout our language and our training.

Mrs Sheridan: 48:58

Our consultants meet. One of our consultants meets in terms of therapeutic supervision and support once a week supervision and support once a week and our other consultant, her specialism is education and curriculum development. So both of our consultants work alongside developing the curriculum with the team. Because unfortunately, when we opened we needed to start almost from scratch with our teaching team and again, I think that was because the teaching team that had been in the previous school. They themselves had been traumatized by their experience and I felt that it was too big a challenge to support their healing whilst addressing the needs of children. So it felt as if we were having to start again with the teaching team. But five years later we have a cohesion and a language and a feeling that we are just an extension of the original organisation, although our approach is slightly different.

Colby: 50:16

And I guess you’ve confirmed what I was suspecting to be true and certainly suspect to be well think is true from my work is that it’s not that much different whether you’re dealing with children who have a history of relational trauma and socioeconomic disadvantage and you’re of diverse children. They’re all children. They all have needs. Relationships are important to them. So the language and the understanding that exists within trauma-informed theories and attachment-based knowledge is important across diverse endeavours, including, you know, as is represented in the Moore House group.

Mrs Sheridan: 51:16

Very much so.

Colby: 51:18

I was wondering if there is anything that you have learnt along the way that you really wished you knew when you were starting any of these endeavours.

Mrs Sheridan: 51:30

Yeah, yes, I wish that I had known at the beginning that, in terms of the development of trauma, and that services and local authorities would move away from the control of children, and I think if I had known that we would, as Scottish services, that we would get to a place where we would use language like love and understanding and relationships.

Mrs Sheridan: 52:23

I think if I had known back then that we would achieve this in terms of the Scottish approach and the Scottish landscape for children, it would have been a bit of a relief and I probably would not have struggled some of the times and cried some of the times that I did in the early days. But I think that within Scotland, childcare and education has come a long way and I’m relieved to know that my approach wasn’t wrong and that, yes, and that we are now there’s more of a camaraderie now in Scotland and an understanding about the needs of children, and for me I just I just find that exciting and a bit of a relief. So, yeah, I wish I’d known back there that we were going to be where we are today.

Colby: 53:27

Yeah, I do an activity when I’m delivering training Patricia, that I adapt for different scenarios, but from a parenting point of view, it’s an activity that’s based around this story, which is that I think of parenting as a bit like being a farmer a farmer who grows crops. Yeah, so, as the parent, you turn over the soil, you make sure you’ve got your paddocks fenced. Yeah, you turn over the soil, you add in extra nutrients that the soil may require, you choose the right time of the year to sow seeds, you plant your seeds and then you wait. You wait for the weather, you wait for you know whether you might have to manage any unwanted intrusions over those fences. But the most important thing is that we do is we wait, and we’re often in the dark about whether, yeah, whether all of those things that we’ve put into the growing environment, whether they’ll bear fruit. We have to wait for our crops to grow.

Colby: 55:00

Yeah, and it sounds very much like that in terms of your journey. You had the courage of your convictions to take service provision in a different direction in Scotland, service provision in a different direction in Scotland, and it turns out that you were right. Yeah, it turns out that you grew what you were hoping to grow. Yes, yeah, my last podcast guest was Richard Rowlandson of the Mulberry Bush School in the UK and his question was what are you feeling hopeful about in the work that you do? And the reason why I’m asking you now is I think you kind of was answering that already. Yeah, a moment ago.

Mrs Sheridan: 56:00

Yes, I’m very hopeful of the way forward In Scotland. We’re talking about the promise, which is a focus nationally, and it’s about recognising the need for children’s voice in decision-making, establishing support, genuine support for families to enable them to nurture and parent their children, so that we don’t end up with the damage and trauma that our children can end up having, and just a genuine awareness and honesty in that we didn’t get it right in the past, but that the future is brighter, there is hope for children. I still think there’s work to do for supporting families. I still think our focus is on the damage rather than preventative work being done, but I am very hopeful that, certainly in Scotland, that we are recognising and understanding the children’s behaviours and what the children are communicating by their behaviours in a way that we didn’t before. It was about control, Whereas now, and even the language.

Mrs Sheridan: 57:36

Now we’re talking about love, we’re talking about relationships and we’re taking risks in becoming attached and showing children that we can love them, that we do believe in them and that we don’t need to be embarrassed about using that language which 30, 40 years ago you were shunned for using that language. So I’m really optimistic and I’m optimistic that God gives me a lot more energy and a lot more years. We have a lot more to do.

Colby: 58:12

Yeah, well, I hope we both get that as well. Yes indeed so, Patricia. I always give my podcast guests an opportunity to ask me a question without notice. We’ve been going for about an hour now. We probably could talk for many more, but we should be thinking about winding this one up, but before we do, is there a question that you would like to ask me without notice?

Mrs Sheridan: 58:43

Yes, I’ve obviously looked into education in Australia and I’m aware of your national improvement framework and I was really wondering about you in terms of do you feel Australia’s education accepts, understands and is driven to meet the needs of the more vulnerable groups of young people? Are you optimistic about the way forward?

Colby: 59:18

That’s a really good question. I could speak primarily of my own jurisdiction, where there has been significant endeavour to roll out training across the jurisdiction to all the schools and personnel within schools in trauma-informed or trauma-responsive practice and what a trauma-sensitive school environment looks like. So there’s definitely been endeavour in that space here and in my neck of the woods In terms of what I think. What I would offer differently is a way of thinking about the work with the children that is tailored to the experience of each and every individual child who has experienced significant relational or other hardship. So capacity to think about and better understand what’s going on for each of those child and how they, how they each, each one of them expresses um that in their, in their outward behavior and and other aspects of their presentation, and I guess I would also a bit similar to what we were talking about before. I think it’s really important that when we deliver training about our most disadvantaged, we also acknowledge that they’re children like all the other children in the school and all the other children in the school are children just like our children who’ve experienced a lot of hardship, people that doesn’t discriminate in terms of the benefit that can flow from the way we approach the role. All that by way of. I encourage teachers and other staff within school that I have contact with to draw on conventional approaches to caregiving and relating that are helpful to all children, including those who’ve experienced significant hardship, because when we do that, that also communicates that all of the adults have within them the capacity to make a significant positive input into the lives the emotional, the relational, the psychological lives of the children. So I’m a little bit hopeful that schools and education are more interested in being trauma sensitive and responsive and indeed trauma informed.

Colby: 1:02:46

I think the difference between being trauma sensitive and trauma responsive and trauma informed, trauma-responsive and trauma-informed so trauma-aware, trauma-sensitive, trauma-responsive and trauma-informed, trauma-informed involves relationship. That’s, I think, the difference. So individual relationships. I really want to get to know you, to get to understand you. I really want to know what needs you have that I can assist with or respond to therapeutically to, in order to ensure that you feel loved, worthy, adequate, capable. I want to ensure those things and I think that, um, um, that that would be the difference from what I, what I understand to be what, what is being rolled out and what I would roll out is that I would encourage for teachers and other educational staff to have that capacity to think about, to reflect on, to understand the needs of each individual child and to deliver ways of of of relating to them and caring for them in school that help them to feel, yeah, worthy, capable, adequate, good enough.

Mrs Sheridan: 1:04:25

Yes, I think that’s why I use the term I’m possible for staff and children. Relationships are the vehicle to all healing, in my view.

Colby: 1:04:41

That’s right.

Mrs Sheridan: 1:04:44

So easy and yet so hard. I said so easy and yet so hard.

Colby: 1:04:51

Yeah, well, yes, I think, yeah, I think. Our children. The perception of many is that our children are defensive and difficult to establish and maintain relationships with. I mean our children who have been hurt and let down, and I’ve never found that.

Mrs Sheridan: 1:05:23

Yeah.

Colby: 1:05:23

I rarely have a child with whom I can’t develop a relationship and I don’t and I do it through helping them feel like they’re a person of worth, helping them feel like that they’re good enough, that they’re capable, they’re adequate. Yeah, just as they are.

Mrs Sheridan: 1:05:44

Yeah, wonderful little beings.

Colby: 1:05:48

They are. Yeah, they keep us on our toes a little as well. They keep us on our toes a little as well. So, finally, I did flag this with my Richard Rowlandson question, but I would just wonder if you have a question that you would like me to ask.

Mrs Sheridan: 1:06:13

My next, guest on this podcast. I was looking. It’s the lighthouse, isn’t?

Colby: 1:06:20

it, it is.

Mrs Sheridan: 1:06:21

I was looking at the work that they were doing and I think for me it’s about how do they create a culture in foster carers that replicates the values of Lighthouse and maintains the values of Lighthouse.

Colby: 1:06:47

Yeah, that’s a really good question. It’s an extraordinary organisation.

Mrs Sheridan: 1:06:51

I was so impressed when I read the background. It was wonderful and I’d like to pass my compliments on to them.

Colby: 1:07:02

I’ll definitely do that. Thank you, Patricia, for what’s been, I think, a really inspirational podcast chat between us. I’ve really appreciated you making the time to appear and I wish you all the best in your ongoing endeavours. Long may they continue to happen.

Mrs Sheridan: 1:07:31

Thank you. I’ve enjoyed this morning with you and I’d just like to say thank you for the opportunity, and it’s with links with people like yourself and Patrick that keep people like myself feeling strong and carrying on the work, so thank you for that too.

Colby: 1:07:52

Lovely. Thank you, you’re welcome.

Mrs Sheridan: 1:07:55

Thank you, you’re welcome, thank you.

Breaking the Cycle: How Investing in Children’s Services Changes Lives, with Andrew Isaac

Beyond 18: What Happens When the System Stops Caring?

In a powerful conversation on the Secure Start podcast, Andrew Isaac, Chair of BSN Social Care and the Children’s Services Development Group, unpacks the challenges and opportunities within the UK’s foster care system. With decades of experience in children’s social care, Andrew provides valuable insights into how we approach caring for our most vulnerable young people.

The foster care crisis in the UK has reached alarming proportions. Since 2010, there has been a 30% increase in children entering care in England alone – from approximately 60,000 to over 80,000 children. This dramatic rise has placed immense pressure on an already strained system. As Andrew explains, this substantial increase isn’t just a number; it represents thousands of individual children requiring comprehensive support systems, qualified foster carers, and appropriate therapeutic interventions to help them transition successfully into adulthood.

One of the most compelling points Andrew raises is the critical importance of early intervention. He laments the loss of approximately 30-40% of Sure Start centres during the financial crisis, which provided crucial early support to vulnerable families. This shortsightedness has contributed to the current influx of teenagers entering the care system. The mathematics is simple but often overlooked by policymakers: investing one pound in early intervention yields multiple pounds in savings down the line. As Andrew passionately states, “I would love a politician to say if we spend this now, these are the benefits of the country over 10, 15 years.”

The statistics Andrew shares are sobering. Approximately 23% of the UK prison population has been through the care system. Young people leaving care at 18 are seven times more likely to commit suicide than their peers. According to research by the National Economic Foundation, every pound invested in a looked-after child generates a sixteen-pound return throughout their life cycle. Reducing the number of care-experienced individuals in prison alone would release nearly a billion pounds from the justice system. These figures highlight not just the human cost but the significant economic implications of inadequate care provision.

Perhaps most concerning is what Andrew describes as “the cliff edge at 18.” At this arbitrary age, young people transition overnight from having a single agency responsible for their wellbeing to navigating up to ten different agencies independently. While legislation called “Staying Put” exists to allow young people to remain with foster carers beyond 18, the financial structure makes this unviable for many foster families who depend on the income to pay their mortgages. The result is devastating – young people “sofa hopping” with nowhere permanent to live, falling out of education, and losing contact with support services entirely.

Andrew also addresses the changing landscape of foster carer recruitment. In today’s society, particularly in metropolitan areas with sky-high property values, potential foster carers must weigh financial considerations carefully. Media coverage of allegations against carers, legitimate or otherwise, further complicates recruitment efforts. Despite these challenges, Andrew emphasizes the importance of honest conversations with potential carers – addressing their concerns upfront while also highlighting the profound difference they can make in a child’s life.

Throughout the conversation, Andrew repeatedly returns to a fundamental truth: “Foster care is by far the best setting for most children that need care outside their own families.” The goal isn’t complex – as another expert referenced in the podcast states, “the great aspiration of children in care is an ordinary life.” This seemingly modest ambition represents a profound shift in how we might measure success in the care system. Rather than focusing solely on educational attainment or other measurable outcomes, perhaps the true measure is enabling these young people to lead stable, content lives and break intergenerational cycles of trauma and care.

You can listen here:

You can watch here:

About Andrew

Andrew is a highly accomplished leader within heavily regulated healthcare, children’s services and special needs education environments.

Andrew is the Chair of BSN Social care, the parent company of six of the UK’s leading foster care agencies servicing much of England and Wales.

Andrew is also the Chair of the Children’s Services Development Group (CSDG), a coalition of leading independent providers of care and specialist education services, who work closely with policymakers, regulators and local authorities to develop policy solutions that will ensure the best possible outcomes for children and young people with complex needs.

Andrew was previously the marketing and communications manager for the National Fostering Agency, which is when we first interacted with each other.

Related Podcast Interviews:

John Whitwell

Listen here:

Watch here:

Richard Cross

Listen here:

Watch here:

Transcript:

Colby: 0:00

Welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Andrew: 0:03

I would love a politician to say if we spend this now, these are the benefits of the country over 10, 15 years. If you reduce the number of looked after children or children who’ve been through the care system in prison, you would release almost a billion pounds worth of cost. The law at the moment in the UK at 18 is a cliff edge for young people. 18 plus are seven times more likely to commit suicide than their peers. So the balance of how you talk to foster carers or potential foster carers when they’re interested is really, really important. If I were talking to somebody that wanted to go into it, I would ask them what they were worried about first. There’s a sort of rule of thumb really. Most people react to something on the third prompt. Foster care is by far the best setting for most children that need care outside their own families. The best place for any child to survive is within mainstream education, but the mainstream education has got to have the right facilities to encourage that young person.

Colby: 1:19

Welcome to the Secure Start podcast. I’m Colby Pearce and joining me for this episode is one of the earliest supporters of my work in the UK to make themselves known to me. Before I introduce my guests, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land that I come to, this meeting on the Kaurna people of the Adelaide Plains and the continuing connection the living Kaurna people feel to land, waters, culture and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. My guest this episode is Andrew Isaac. My guest this episode is Andrew Isaac.

Colby: 2:10

Andrew is a highly accomplished leader within heavily regulated healthcare, children’s services and special needs education environments. Andrew is the chair of BSN Social Care, the parent company of six of the UK’s leading foster care agencies serving much of England and Wales. Andrew is also the chair of the Children’s Services Development Group, a coalition of leading independent providers of care and specialist education services who work closely with policy makers, regulators and local authorities to develop policy solutions that will ensure the best possible outcomes for children and young people with complex needs. Andrew was previously the Marketing and Communications Manager for the National Fostering Agency, which is when we first interacted with each other. I was under the impression that Andrew had since retired some time ago, but, as we’ll hear, that does not appear to be the case. Welcome, Andrew.

Andrew: 3:17

Thank you, Hi Colby.

Colby: 3:19

You sent me a bio and it was quite extensive and impressive and you asked me not to include all of that in my introduction. But was there anything that I missed there or any comment you want to make about the retirement scenario?

Andrew: 3:38

Well, I never really ended up retiring, so it was more about a point of what you know and, uh, you know the experience that you’ve had and you can benefit other people, so you just keep going, which I’m sure you will do so yourself yeah, well, uh, maybe, um, who knows, maybe I’ll be.

Colby: 4:01

I’ll still be doing podcasts, um, when I, when I give up uh, consulting, I I think you podcasts when I give up consulting.

]Andrew: 4:06

I think you will when you give up being active. I think you won’t, because you’ll still be doing it. I’ll almost wager a lunch on that with you. Aye, aye.

Colby: 4:18

Well, yeah, and a lunch, as we were just talking about before we came on, a lunch over in your neck of the woods in the UK would be a very attractive proposition for me, as long as it’s not above 30 degrees, as I’m hearing that you’ve been having lately there in the UK.

Andrew: 4:38

Well, it’s probably good Australian weather actually.

Colby: 4:41

Every time I’ve been to Australia.

Andrew: 4:43

It’s been in your summertime and it’s been wonderful. I’m thinking, oh, oh, I wish we could have that weather over here and uh, and so we have. My wish has come true. Well, it’s the case. We don’t cope with it as well as you do.

Colby: 4:55

I don’t think I don’t know if you’re set up for it like we are, although you do often have double glazed windows in your houses, which we don’t, which is quite uncommon in south in australia. So heat transfer from outside to inside is a is an issue, but we do have air conditioning by and large in our houses. Um and look, I’ll correct you on one thing there is a difference between the hot weather in the uk and the hot weather here, particularly where I am, I’m in the UK, and the hot weather here, particularly where I am. I’m in the middle south part of Australia, in the driest state on the driest continent on earth. The heat is dry and whereas in your neck of the woods it’s humid, and we do have parts of Australia where the heat is humid. But I just don’t like humidity at all, having always been here and in fact funny story whenever I used to go to Ireland for work, I used to take jackets with me and never wore them.

Colby: 5:56

And uh one one day I was with my son. We were out on uh at a lighthouse on Fannad Head in uh County, donegal, so right out on the Atlantic Ocean, out in the west, and it was 10 degrees Celsius at the time and I was feeling warm in a T-shirt and a local Irish lady came up and started seemingly berating me and I couldn’t understand a word she was saying because she was berating me in irish and uh, and then, I think, when I looked perplexed enough, she corrected to um english and uh, yeah, it was just basically so. How can you possibly be standing out here in this force 10 gale in in in a t-shirt? But you know the humidity that you have there is just horrible from from my perspective, growing up in a dry environment well, I suppose, and the differences as well.

Andrew: 6:53

When you walk around here, especially springtime, the, the green color of the trees and the grass is fabulous. I’ve never I’ve traveled all over the world and I’ve never seen it recreated in in the way you get it for those few weeks in the spring, although the autumn is different, because you go to various parts of the usa and you have lovely autumn colors, but the spring green is uh, it lifts your spirits hugely yeah, so I got you on because you have had a long career in management and something of a post-career, but the career has been ongoing in social care and related sectors and I firstly just wanted to ask you, andrew, how you got into management in the social care setting.

Andrew: 7:52

Well, ironically, I used to work for Marriott International and they merged, which is a family company company, and they merged with a company called Sodexo, which is also predominantly a family company, and for some reason I ended up in the healthcare division in the UK for Sodexo, dealing with healthcare provision in the NHS hospitals, which I had no experience at all. But with sales and marketing and communications experience, you suddenly learn what you’ve got to do. So I found it interesting for a number of years. And then my old CEO moved sectors. He moved into the National Fostering Agency in the UK as a new CEO in the UK, as a new CEO, and you know, he and I got on extremely well and effectively.

Andrew: 8:55

I moved with him thinking, ah, what have I done? Well, your skills are transferable and actually it’s probably the best thing I ever did, because when you look at the difference you can make, particularly in children’s social care, it doesn’t matter whether it’s fostering or special needs education, you can use your skills to. Let’s take fostering, for example. Um, there was a very quaint view of quaint, perhaps that’s that’s a little bit unkind an old-fashioned view of foster, foster carers and how they were recruited, and you know what they did.

Andrew: 9:33

Um, and when the market in the uk was deregulated in the late 90s, there was an opportunity for independent fostering agencies to be created yeah um, and as part of that, then people had a choice as to whether they went to work for local governments to foster carer or they went to work for an independent fostering agency, and basically there’s never enough foster carers. I’ve never come across any country in the world where there’s enough foster carers that are doing it in a in a professional manner, and I think this is where we need to drive it forward even more in. Foster carers need to be regarded as being professional. Yeah, so I realized that, uh, part of my job would be how can we recruit foster carers in a more professional way? It also meant using my market marketing experience to to make sure that we we we gained the interest of people wanted to know about it, but once they wanted to know about it, making sure they were fully informed before they made their decisions and then making sure that during there’s a very lengthy assessment process in the uk probably on average takes at least six months, and that’s going through all the appropriate background tracks, blah, blah, blah but also, during that process, making sure they’re trained to deal with all sorts of things. Now, that was 20 odd years ago and it worked extremely well and we we recruited lots of foster carers, and our organization at the time became the largest provider of independent fostering services in the uk, and I thought, gosh, I need to learn more and more and more. So, part of my communication skills, I began getting involved with children’s Services Development Group as a member, and, looking at the legislation that applies to social care is outmoded and outdated because it was written for a time that doesn’t exist anymore.

Andrew: 11:40

If you look, should we say over the last say since around about 2010, there’s been a 30% increase in children in care in England and that’s a phenomenal amount. It’s gone from 60-odd thousand to 80-odd thousand. If then you might say, oh well, yeah, that’s only 30,000 children, but sit and look at what’s behind it. Look at the number of foster carers, look at the number of residential settings and then into your world, look at the number of therapies and and social care support that’s needed to ensure those children that should be at the focus of everything that everybody does that they can transit into adulthood and and develop a life for themselves. That’s pretty level-headed and straightforward. Doesn’t matter about whether they’re yeah, how, whether they go to university or not, but it’s about their life skills and all sorts of things. So you suddenly take that and you suddenly got a huge, huge range of support organizations that need to be there to help a young person on their journey through life, and when you get that in huge numbers, that then starts putting a huge amount of pressure on the infrastructure that’s actually used to support them.

Andrew: 13:07

I’ll I’ll take you back, maybe to the the financial banking crisis. At that particular point, um, lots of funds were taken out to make economies and and all sorts of things and, uh, give you, give you time on sure stocks. I know you know the early years of you. Know I’m as passionate about the early years as as as you are, in the sense that if you can intervene at an early stage with a young family, um, or a child, you can make such a difference in those early years where they don’t need support later on in life.

Andrew: 13:44

Now, probably about 30 or 40 percent of short start centers were lost during that financial period. Now everybody said, oh, that’s, that’s fine. Now, 10, 12, 14 years on, there is an influx of young middle teens people coming into the care system. Now I’m sure with your experience, you know the difference between looking after a 14, 15 year old, six foot two young man than it is a four or five year old. So that doubles the workload that you need to do to help them go through the issues that they’ve got, and often issues that they’ve developed over a long period of time. So, on top of that, you’ve increased the volume of what’s going through. But also, going back to the short start areas at the beginning, you’ve also lost the intellectual property that was around at those times. That isn’t passed down to new people that are coming into the sector. Yeah, so you do have at the moment, people entering the sector for all right reasons and great qualifications, etc.

Andrew: 14:58

What you don’t have is a huge amount of um older people work, older, more mature people that have been in sector a long time to be able to pass their knowledge on, and that’s that’s an area that um I I’m probably disappointed in life in, really, because, um I’m not a social worker and I have met social workers who’ve had who are career social workers and their understanding of how to help a child or a young person is phenomenal.

Andrew: 15:29

It’s almost um an automatic insight that they have with all the different types of uh elements that present themselves with the young person. So I suppose um rattling on a bit here, uh, as I worked through um with, with national fostering agency, I could see, along with my other senior colleagues, the more work, more work that needed to be done, um. And when I left, uh, um, nfa, or my quasi-retirement, so to speak, switching, I was fortunate enough to maintain my children’s services development group role, and, you know, as chair there an independent chair, because my company I actually work for are not members, that is, you know, a small membership organization of larger companies yes um.

Andrew: 16:30

You know, 90 percent of their um, their settings, are all rated outstanding or good. So the quality thresholds are there. But importantly, we can’t all say, because we’re we’re all outstandingly, you won’t have issues. You know, you’ve worked with children long enough to know that one issue and all sorts of things can go wrong. But they have an infrastructure set up to deal with a problem if a problem occurs at a grassroots level. Part of that also in the UK. It’s a mixed economy. Part of that also in the UK. It’s a mixed economy.

Andrew: 17:05

Overall in children’s services maybe 40, 43% of services are delivered by the independent sector and the rest by the state. But in England alone we have 150 plus local authorities with their own character, their own style, their own political backgrounds etc. So things are always done slightly differently. But legally the local authority is the corporate parent of a child in care and that counts as statutory obligations. And when you see the rises that we’ve talked about in volumes, you can actually see what the problem could be when one the legislation doesn’t change for it but sadly, when the funding doesn’t keep pace, yeah, yeah. So what worries me in today’s society is, you know, we don’t want the child to become a transaction People that are looking after and have responsibility for that child to look and say what does that child need? What does that young person need? How best can we work with them to deliver the right things they need to transition into adulthood?Colby: 18:23

And those questions, andrew, that you pose. They’re predicated on people who work in the sector having the time to stop and think about the young person and think about their needs and think about what services would be of assistance to them and what the outcomes look like. As it is, I think, in probably a great many jurisdictions around the world, including my own jurisdiction here in South Australia the exponential increase in the number of children coming into care, coupled with not enough funding to keep pace with that, has meant that the work has become more procedural and less reflective is how I put it.

Andrew: 19:12

I totally agree with you. You then look, and it doesn’t really matter which country you’re in certainly Australia or the UK most of the original legislation was created in the late 90s. Now, in the late 90s, bringing up a child was in a certain, you know, type of environment and setting. Today, the society doesn’t relate at all to what it was in the 90s. You know pressures on individual children, I mean especially with all the things they’re exposed to on social media, and you know the use of the internet and the you know lack of development of, you know, interaction with, with people. There’s 101 different things that people far more qualified than I can can recognize my, my view from, from, from trying to persuade the government to look at it. What’s appropriate to children and young people today is different to what it was 25 years ago. Yeah, you know, and you need then to reflect the type of service that you give them. If you take residential care.

Andrew: 20:26

Um, with residential, there are some children that benefit from being in residential care, whether that’s, you know, physical or mental or sensory, whatever it might be, there will be a need for residential care to be provided. Now, over the years, the uk has ended up with the majority of residential settings being provided by the independent organizations you know. Probably two-thirds of of local authorities do not either have any residential facilities or very few, and that’s just the way the the market goes. But then you have to question what type of child do we put into a residential care? What type of young person, what’s best for them? And you go back to saying what is it that young person needs? I know, and you know, that young person needs to be in a family orientated setting. Yep, foster care is by far the best setting for most children that need care outside their own families and that will provide them with a balance straightforward. So actually putting children into residential one is far more expensive, but doesn’t then bring the best out of them.

Andrew: 21:40

And then you take the next bit what other support do they need going around their foster care? What sort of trauma have they been through in their lives? Because, let’s face it, originally they’re in situations which they did not create themselves. So they they’re. Whether it’s, whether the families they’re born into, the situations they’re born into, was no original fault of their own. So therefore, once you understand that and saying right, okay, quite a lot of them could go into fostering. When they’re in fostering. Well support do we need to give the foster carers in order to deal with it? And secondly, what emotional support can they give them to get them through to their adulthood?

Andrew: 22:24

And in a lot of instances it is more than just training the foster carers. You do need external professionals to come in and help, particularly on the mental health side, in in being able to allow these young people to understand why their behavior is like it is, and then that in turn impacts on education, so they may be fall out of school. They’re excluded from school. Um, their, their, their learning becomes more inward looking and and here it just doesn’t happen. So, he’s, all right, you need some special educational needs.

Andrew: 23:02

Um, yeah, the best place for any child to to survive is within mainstream education, but the mainstream education has got to have the right facilities to encourage that young person, because they need to integrate back into the mainstream run in order to develop the social skills they need. And again, in a lot of instances mainstream school may not be the right place because there are here one-to-ones that probably need. I know schools where you have individual pupils that are probably needed. I know schools where you have individual pupils that are residential that require two or three adults 24-7. In those instances you put the price tag on that. That’s phenomenal. It might cost a lot of money, but that’s where the service is built around the child. So I’d love to go back to a situation where the social workers that are dealing with the child at the front line they’re dealing with a family where the where the child has come from, and they’re looking and say the foster care is where the child is planned to go, that they look at the matching skills behind it and they’re the ones that say this is the best setting for that child.

Andrew: 24:15

Yeah, doesn’t happen anymore. As you know, it goes up to. Well, this is, this is a transactional thing and this person x y z child x y z. You know that’s going to cost us this. That’s one of the alternatives that cost. Um, I don’t think that’s right, but I understand why we’ve got to that. But that’s looking and currently in the UK legislation is being changed phenomenally. There’s a big new bill going through Parliament currently which will bring a lot of things up to date, but that will require a lot of implementation.

Colby: 24:55

So you might have an Act of Parliament that’s passed, but then you’ve got to implement it, and that means detailed changes to regulation, to guidelines, which will take some time and look, there’s so much in that, in what you were talking about, and I think you’ve really laid it out in terms of that exponential increase in young people ending up in care in the UK over the last couple of decades.

Colby: 25:25

I want to take you back to your role in the National Fostering Agency and you talked a little bit earlier about recruitment of foster carers and I guess one of the biggest challenges has been, with that increase of young people coming into care, that there’s been a need to really step up the recruitment and you’ve been competing, I guess as well, recruitment, and you’ve been competing, I guess as well, with other independent bodies that came into the marketplace, so to speak. I’m really interested to hear about and I’m sure our listeners will be about the recruitment of foster carers, your experience as when you’re in the National Fostering Agency, what you thought helped or hindered that process of securing enough quality foster carers.

Andrew: 26:26

Yeah, I think, if you go back to the basics of foster care recruitment, it’s you need to attract the right person for the right reasons in the first instance, um, and going back a number of years, there was a situation where you could assure them well, actually, you’re not doing it all for nothing.

Andrew: 26:45

You are being given fees in which to cover your costs and and the time that you spend, because there there is a statute tax benefit statute in the UK which we managed a couple of years ago to get doubled so that they can have these fees which won’t attract income tax, and that’s part of it in today’s cost of living crisis. But going back to your original question, there’s a sort of rule of thumb. Really. Most people react to something on the third prompt. So, if you get interest from somebody who may have watched a tv program where fostering has been involved, and many of the soap operas, um, certainly in the uk, which I’m sure are broadcast in australia as well um have had storylines based around fostering now, I know that because we advised on on a number of them and you’re watching that and you think, oh, you know, you know our kids are getting older or left home empty nesters, all that sort of thing maybe we could foster.

Andrew: 27:52

And they think about it, um, and and, as they’re going through their daily life, they might see an article in a magazine, they might see something online, they might look at one of your podcasts, um, or they, they, they might see huge recordings, I mean, whatever it might be, might then be a second prompt and then probably a year or months or whatever later, they will come across a situation that they recognize on the how, the call to action, how to do it, and this could have a period of a few months, or typically that is over a year or so. Whilst people think about it, you know, and they then they’re, they’re moving from oh, it’s in there to. Well, actually, we really need to look about this now that at that point, whoever is providing the service and whomsoever they contact need to be aware of community and location. It is no good somebody in the north of england talking to somebody on the south coast telling them what it’s like on the south coast. They would need to talk to somebody in their, their vicinity, part of their community, that say in our community we have this number of children that need looking after. These are the types of children they are, and this is where you could make a good difference in that dialogue explaining the child and then understanding from the potential foster carers where they feel their skills like, bearing in mind that none of them would necessarily, apart from bringing up their own children, would would have any knowledge, and that’s when you talk to them about. Well, if you’re interested in looking after teenagers, then the type of training we give you will help you deal with situations you will come across and you know where your own, your own experience with your own teenagers is hugely helpful, but these probably are not as typical as your own kids would be. So that’s the process, then. Is is talking to them and not pressurizing and understanding what they have to go through to get it. Now, that’s part of it, and once I think, ok, I’m going to put my toes in the water and I’m going to fill in this application form, which is hugely long, can make the difference in talking to people and explaining this is hard, but the results are worth it.

Andrew: 30:41

And and going through the assessment process is challenging. Uh, it does go, you know. It does dig into your innermost thoughts, your personal life. It’s, you know. It can expose an awful lot of things. It talks to your family, all sorts of stuff. Yeah, for all the right reasons, because safeguarding is paramount for the child.

Andrew: 31:01

Um, so going back again is how do you approach people now in today’s society? Can let’s come up to date. Now you’ve got metropolitan cities? Uh, you know, you’ve know, london, manchester, birmingham, melbourne, sydney, etc. Property prices through the roof. If you’re in london and you’ve got a couple of spare rooms and you want to, should we say, increase your money into the household, you could probably rent the room out to to somebody for a lot more than you would get fostering. So therefore the property value becomes an issue.

Andrew: 31:39

You then have a lot of exposure in the media about accusations and allegations from children and young people and that people will say do I really want to go through that?

Andrew: 31:53

Yeah, because if you look through, you know, and yes, you know, these things happen and sometimes they’re they’re not good. I can mention a couple of cases in the uk where immediately, you would be fully aware of what what it was about, but there are also allegations made that aren’t uh, you know, aren’t true, and that has a huge effect on potential foster carers in the first place. Yeah, so the balance of how you talk to foster carers or potential foster carers when they’re interested is really, really important understanding, understanding their motivation. If I were talking to somebody that wanted to go into it, I would ask them what they were worried about first, what worries you about becoming a foster care? Because that way you’re bringing it to the front and not leaving it in the background somewhere, so that halfway through their assessment they’ve had enough. When they go to the more difficult training, well, you know what to do with, with restraint and all that sort of stuff um, you know they’re more equipped for that.

Andrew: 33:08

So, apart from recruitment, there’s also retention of foster carers yeah yeah, particularly those maybe had a bad experience or who haven’t been able to manage a particular placement and there’s been a placement breakdown. You then got to look at how you deal with that. Um, I’m at a couple in london and, um, they’d been long-term foster carers. They have three young people. They were full-time, they didn’t have other jobs. One young person was disabled but they went on all the relevant training to deal with his disability Great. They had a couple of other young people in one who had special educational needs and one who was a great kid with the other two. That makes sense.

Andrew: 34:03

And when one of the children moved on, they then turned to preparing babies for adoption, which the adoption process can be interminably long, even for little babies, and often they would have those babies from, you know, a couple of days old or a few weeks old, through to two or three. During that period, in order that child develops, they have to attach. So the child itself is going through the normal procedure and this couple were phenomenal at this and and the problem happens then when an adoptive parent is found and they then go through a number of months when they’re working with the adoptive family to transfer across and, you know all the usual things about the day-to-day routine, and then the day comes when the baby is handed over or the young child is handed over. They maintain contact for questions, questions, that sort of thing. And then we found the.

Andrew: 35:11

It was almost like a bereavement process for the foster carers. How then do we counsel them to? You know, they know what they’ve done is for the best interest of the young person child, but how do they deal with the emotional side of then relinquishing those two or three years and relinquishing, uh, and then the, um, the, the husband, um, he used to go for about three days into his shed for the bottom of the gut and bang nails into bits of wood and scream and yell at himself to get out that, yeah, um. So we, we developed at that point, uh, quite a lot of, uh, little bits of counseling that will wrap around them, make sure that they went through the process and realized they weren’t on their own. But that is a a difficulty within fostering. If you’re doing that, I so admire those people because you know you’re you’re an attachment specialist. I mean, I, I would struggle with that.

Colby: 36:23

I don’t know if you would uh, to perform the role Absolutely, and certainly for the children as well. I mean, children will not be unaffected by this process as well, and one of the things that you’ve talked about in terms of the recruitment of foster carers is that balance of what you say to them, how you prepare them in the early stages of them expressing their interest and then through the assessment process. And what I heard you say is that it’s important to be realistic and it’s. It’s interesting because I um, I have in in an earlier part of my career, I was involved in inter-country adoption assessments, assessing couples who wanted to adopt children, uh, from overseas, and everything was upbeat about it. You know, these were people who were going to ensure that children grew up in a family environment as opposed to an institution in a third world country, and it was also very positive.

Colby: 37:36

And then there was a movie that was made about the two lads that were adopted by a. Well, two lads were adopted by a couple in New Zealand from India. It centred around one of those particular lads and I cannot remember the name of it, but it was a very good portrayal of how complicated it is raising children who have experienced relational traumas or attachment traumas, at the least. And if a child has grown up in a family until they’re three and then they go to another family, there are consequences associated with that. And I’m well and truly on the side of being as open and transparent as we can be about both, both the the blessings and the and the curses, so to speak, because I think people need to be, they need to be prepared, and then that feeds into retention, of course, because you you don’t want people who find six months in 12 months, in two years, into providing a placement or placements that this is not what they were told it was going to be, because then you’ve got potential um harm for them, the foster, the foster parents who have to relinquish children because it is not what they were expecting.

Colby: 39:18

Usually they’ve not felt supported enough or that the decisions that are taken by the child protection authorities are run counter to what they think should happen. And in my jurisdiction, and I’m sure in plenty of others, birth family connection and birth family contact is one of those vexed issues, those vexed issues. So it’s not only is it tremendously impactful for foster carers to come to the realisation that this is not what they signed up for and that it is harming them in some way. But then those children as well, those children that have been in their home, the impact for them of a foster placement that has to come to an end. A lot of what you’re saying is really resonating with me. If you can’t tell the story, warts and all then how can people be prepared for it?

Andrew: 40:22

Yes, and I think you have to be truthful and establish what their worries are. But then you must also outline the benefits. Just to give you another example, a couple I know have three young people with them a brother and sister and now a six or seven-year-old. And the two older children were in a bit of a state when they arrived and this couple have done some amazing work with them, to the extent that um the issues with with family contacts was were dealt with. Um, and the two older children are now in a position to choose and select, and they chose no further family contact. It was their choice and they had all the right support in doing it. But the older children now, when they get to 18, want to change their name to that of their foster carers. That’s an amazingly successful placement where the two older children have been there eight, nine years now and they feel as if they’re in a fully fledged family environment. But they are also working with their foster parents on a younger child that’s come in who has been through a very traumatic time, and the youngsters are helping and I just think that’s quite wonderful.

Andrew: 41:59

So I suppose what you’ve got to, you’ve got to look at, is we often hear. Well, we regularly hear when things go wrong. What you don’t hear about is when things go right, and you know there, there are so many wonderful stories out there where things go right. Um, and it’s getting that balance. My other hobby horse is what happens at 18 um, because the law tell me what you think the law at the moment in the uk at 18 is?

Andrew: 42:26

Tell me what you think the law at the moment in the UK. 18 is a cliff edge for young people Transition into adulthood, Up to 18, there is a corporate parent structure where there are statutory obligations and they’re dealing with one agency. Day after their 18th birthday they deal with eight, nine, ten different agencies. Now you tell me what young person at 18 that’s had a pretty traumatic upbringing being stabilized by by good foster carers? How on earth are they going to cope with that? You know it’s your own children. You don’t kick out at 18. The downside is, whilst there’s a lot of rhetoric going on about it, the foster carers who make their life as foster carers, so the fees they receive per their mortgage and their bills and things like that, have no option, option at 18.

Andrew: 43:28

But if they’ve got a spare room, move on to the next young person coming in. If the older child is to say, there is a facility called staying put in the uk but the finances of that don’t work for the foster carer. So you imagine you’ve got. You know we did some uh cstg quite a lot of research a few years ago in terms of what happens to kids post 18. 23 of the uk prison population has been through the care system or contact with the care system. Yeah, there are 18 plus are seven times more likely to commit suicide than their peers.

Andrew: 44:12

We worked with a couple of homeless charities and the number of young people that were sofa hopping because they had nowhere to live. Because they had nowhere to live it. How on earth do we expect them to move into and become self-sufficient when we don’t track them through? So my advocacy at the moment is we need to do something to take on. And yes, there is statutory legislation. You get the the uh, the rhetoric back that they should do this. We look after laughed until they’re 25. Yes, the law is there that highlights that at a senior level, but where is the practical input.

Andrew: 44:56

You look at the stats and how many kids have lost contact with their original corporate parent. Therefore, we haven’t tracked where they’ve gone. And in today’s society they they fall so much easy, easily into the wrong areas. They become more statistics. There was a study done by the national economic foundation a number of years ago now probably more years than I care to remember. I think it still brings true every pound that was invested in a looked after child will have a life cycle of 16 pounds. As you go through now you hear the numbers on that. It’s huge amounts of money. If you reduce the number of looked after children or children that’ve been through the care system in prison, you release almost a billion pounds worth of cost out of the justice system.

Colby: 45:51

Yeah, I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to hear it, but Graham Kerridge was a very interesting podcast guest of mine, one of the earlier podcasts. He’d worked at the beginning of his career in the Cotswold community and had thereafter gone into international health development, health management quite an illustrious career. But he got me thinking about well. He was very interested in human capital and that was what led him to get involved in social care at the beginning of his career. And when we create a better life for a young person, we’re also creating a better life for their long-term partner, their children and their grandchildren. Potentially that human capital created is intergenerational in effect, and also, as you say, the services that and this is tied up in the whole early intervention movement and the rationale behind its importance. But if we can keep our young people out of institutions like the justice institutions, there’s an untold capital almost.

Colby: 47:15

When you’re talking about well, another podcast guest of mine you’ve touched on it a couple of times, but her name is Adela Holmes. She had this. It sends a chill down your spine quote that the great aspiration of children in care, children who have grown up in care, is an ordinary life. And wouldn’t that be great if they could just have an ordinary life, have their own children successfully raise those children, have grandchildren, and the saving not just the saving but the benefit to society of that happening is You’re so right because there’s been some fiscal studies on early intervention that if you invest one pound up front you’ll double your returns very quickly.

Andrew: 48:16

Up front in the early years will just save you so much money going forward. And that’s perhaps trying to change the narrative of how chancellors of the Exchequer and treasury ministers look at spending. It’s all short-term budget now, because maybe in five years time or 10 years time they’re no longer going to be in power. They’re not worried about that. Yeah, I would love a politician to say if we spend this now, these are the benefits of the country over 10, 15 years and you drive through.

Andrew: 48:49

You talked about the human capital. Now you take that and I want an ordinary life. So my human capital is going to develop. I will get a job, I will pay my taxes, I will have a partner, I will have children. They will grow up in a more secure environment. They will grow up in a more secure environment. They will grow up normally. Of course they’re going to need health care and dental care and schooling and that sort of stuff, but hopefully then they will move into job. So you then start creating revenue for the country as well.

Andrew: 49:20

Incidentally, but the person that kicked it all off the child account wanted an ordinary life. But the person that kicked it all off the child account wanted an ordinary life gets their wish granted and they become happy, as contented as they could. But they could best they could possibly be as a human being, and it doesn’t matter if you, you know, rich as creases or as poor as a church mouse. It’s about are you content as a human being that you’ve done your very best in everything that you do? And if you could give those young people the skills to be as good as they could possibly be, then that investment early on pays huge dividends to society. Every time you open a newspaper or you look online at news, there’s some sort of disaster regarding young people or you know young families. There’s a major crisis going on and you think, if you went back, how could that have been avoided? For a kickoff not knocking the backside out of early start, you know, 15, 20 years ago. I wonder if you can come back to that yeah, yeah.

Andrew: 50:33

It is something, but I mean it is what it is and we are where we are, but now we need to make sure that the money invested is invested correctly. The best place for any child that needs non-family you know none non-birth family help is in a family environment. It’s the same the whole world over. But I think the focus on that but it’s the short term the short-termism by governments all over the world is probably a fault there.

Colby: 51:06

Yeah.

Andrew: 51:07

And the narrative, the whole narrative needs to change, but change in any first world country takes time. And it’s not, you know it’s not political gold. That’s the problem. You know, the problem is always going to be there and children’s services tend to be a Cinderella service across the world.

Colby: 51:30

What do you mean by that? Sorry?

Andrew: 51:33

What do you mean by that? A Cinderella service that it’s out of sight, out of mind? If it’s just plodding along, that’s fine. The minute it makes a headline, something done about it, yeah. But most of the time it doesn’t make the headlines, because the much more interesting things that you know that politicians say and do that people want to read about and I don’t think the societal change over the last couple of decades is is reflected in how we look after our children. These days we’re very much reliant on processes, procedures, and we’ve always done it this way. That’s right.

Colby: 52:18

Somebody needs to make a change. That’s a nice spot to pause and reflect on. I mean, we were talking about it early on and I said that whenever you’re in a or I would say that whenever your resources are stretched, you’re time poor and otherwise your resources are stretched in whatever role that you’re performing. We do have a. There seems to be a human inclination to become very procedural. This is how we’ve always done it Stop thinking, stop stopping and thinking, but just becoming very procedural and I’ve said it in a number of podcasts Our service delivery, in those circumstances where we’re not thinking about ourselves and not thinking about the person, the recipient of our services, when they’re received procedural, they can be quite heartless and that that’s, that’s not a good outcome. Andrew, thank you for agreeing to come on. I always there’s so much I could talk to you about. There was so much in there that I could follow up on, and maybe, if you came, we might set up another time down the track a little ways and explore it a little bit more.

Andrew: 53:44

I particularly would love to talk to you more about the Children’s Services development group, um, as well yeah, yeah, quietly in the background, they do a huge amount of work to try and let politicians understand what the real world of children’s services is about yeah, yeah now, andrew, yeah yeah, well, I’d love to as well.

Colby: 54:10

Now, I always always well these. I’ve started a trend of giving my my podcast guests an opportunity to ask me a question at the end of the podcast.

Andrew: 54:18

I wonder if there’s a question without notice you’d like to um launch onto me, so to speak well, I think one of one of the things that I’ve always uh you know, admired, enjoyed and agreed with is how can we teach ordinary folk, whether they be parents, foster carers or workers in our sector, how can we give them simple tools to help with making children more resilient to their circumstances? What would you say, the simple tools that foster carers, ordinary parents, can use when they’re helping children, so those children in today’s society become more resilient?

Colby: 55:10

Yeah, well, it’s a good question. I think I don’t know if I’m aligned with others or a little bit different from others, but I often think that complex problems are not easily solved with complex solutions. Yeah, and in actual fact, the solved with complex solutions? Yeah, and in actual fact, the problem with complex solutions, such that they depart from conventional caregiving, they’re hard to implement and they’re hard to sustain over time. And our children, particularly our children, who have experienced disruption, attachment disruption, loss and trauma in their life, if there’s one thing that that triggers them, that gets them going, is inconsistency.

Colby: 56:02

So the last thing you want to do, I think, is to advocate an approach to caregiving of our young people that is even difficult to implement in the first place, but certainly difficult to maintain over time, and particularly in the face of our young people. You know the ship doesn’t turn around quickly very often, and and and people can lose hope, you know, or lose faith in, in, in the worth of of strategies, and then they’ll revert back to some other previous approach. Now that’s the big problem is the reverting back. So our young people, just you know they’re left with thinking, oh, are you going to be like this or are you going to be like that? Are you going to be like that and how long is going to be like that? Are you going to be like that, and how long is that going to go on for before you end up coming back? So my view is that we need to have a look at conventional aspects of caregiving and relating that are very powerful and very important to the recovery, the reasonable recovery, that we can expect our young people to make. I say that because I think we’re all impacted by what happens during our childhood, and the best of us and everyone else as well, and so I think our children retain some enduring sensitivities, but we can put them on that path that you talk about of being resilient to challenges in life, of achieving that goal of an ordinary life where we um, where they get um, caregiving, that um is conventional, so it doesn’t stand out like a sore thumb, it’s not triggering. This is this is not what I’ve seen or experienced before necessarily um, and I say that because all kids who come into care have experienced some level of conventional care prior to removal. It’s just been inadequate, grossly inadequate often enough, but conventional approaches to caregiving and relating are still recognisable to the children. So all that by way of our children coming to care. Often enough, they’ve had a disrupted period of growth and development at the beginning of their life.

Colby: 58:40

So the things that we know that support happy, healthy babies and positive growth and development are things like a fairly consistent home environment with consistent carers, caregivers. Those caregivers are there for them, are accessible to them. They don’t spend a long time away from the infants. If they do move away, they check in on them frequently and in in doing that, the infant first learns you’re the people that look after me and later learns you’ll still be there to look after me even when I can’t see you hear, you smell, you touch, you taste you. In those circumstances they develop an appropriate understanding that that the people who look after them truly are there for them, are accessible to them.

Colby: 59:37

When their tummy is feeling uncomfortable after a feed, they get burped. When their nappy’s feeling a bit uncomfortable and wet and yucky, they get changed. When they’re needing comfort, they get held. When they’re tired, they get put to sleep. When they’re hungryucky, they get changed when they want to. When they’re needing comfort, they get held. When they’re tired, they get put to sleep. When they’re hungry, they get fed.

Colby: 59:56

So the infant’s experience is that that the people who look after them understand their experience, understand what’s going on for them, and they can trust you can trust this person because they understand me. And then they and and not only do they understand what’s going on for me, they respond to what I need, and when I’m happy, they’re happy. When I’m sad, they’re sad. When I’m screaming the house down, they’re looking like they’re about to have a meltdown, but then they get themselves under control and they come back and they calm down. And that’s so reassuring for me as a small child that I can trust this person to understand me in their thoughts, in their words, in their actions and in their expressed emotions. But they will then help me regulate back to a calm and contented place.

Colby: 1:00:50

So you did ask the question. This is a rather long answer, but what I’m really getting to is that those things that were really key during infancy and early childhood, that were often inadequate in our children in care, they’re the things that we need to enrich and put back in and make sure that our young people have a really good experience of it. It might look a bit different to how you do it with a baby, undoubtedly, unless you’ve got a baby in your care, it will look different. But what you want is a household that has some things that are consistent about it that the care that is delivered, including these other things I’m going to say, are delivered consistently. That you check in with the child or young person proactively. You just bob your head in, see how they’re going, so that they have the experience that you’re thinking of them, aware of them, and you’re there for them. That when you bob your head in, you notice what they’re doing In your words, rather than asking a question, you might say to them oh, you’re really getting into that game. I’ve seen you watching a lot of this program. You obviously love it. But they experience this as understanding them, just as the infant does when we change them when it needs changed or we feed them when they’re hungry, and that we, we anticipate some of their requests, their reasonable requests, that we would respond to and we delete. We respond to them without them having to ask their experiences. Wow, the I can trust this person. They understand my needs and respond to them without me having to push their buttons and pulling their strings.

Colby: 1:02:35

And play is every carer’s superpower. When you play, we fall into sync the adult and the child. You know we have a good time together, there’s good moments of emotional connection, and then the adult doesn’t let it go too far and they regulate back to calm and the kids come with us. They’re not, they’re not difficult. I mean a good example.

Colby: 1:03:00

Often our kids love all kids love hide and seek. But often our kids in out-of-home care really love hide and seek but they’re really bad at it because they can’t that when, when you get them to go and hide, they can’t hide without calling out I’m here, you’re getting close to the cup again, because they want to be found. That hide and seek such a great game because it it it helps children to tolerate temporary separations. But for our kids in care, it’s a great game because it helps them to experience that they will be found. So there you go.

Colby: 1:03:43

That was probably a 10-minute answer. You might have anticipated a five-minute one. But, yeah, being consistent, being consistent, accessible, responsive and emotionally connected to our kids, that’s the what I would. Um, yeah, thank you. Thank you again, andrew. Now, andrew, I’m gonna do something that, um, you’re the first person I’m going to do this, for it was a suggestion that was made by my colleague and somewhat of a silent partner for this podcast, Patrick Tomlinson. He has suggested it might be a good idea to get podcast guests to think of a question for the next guest. Now, I think that would be a little bit hard, a bit rough, unless you knew who the next guest was. So I’m going to tell you and I’m not going to tell anyone else, thank you.

Breaking Cycles: Healing Across Generations with Dr. Lisa Cherry

The Transformative Power of Trauma-Informed Practice: Insights from Dr. Lisa Cherry

In a compelling conversation on the Secure Start podcast, Dr. Lisa Cherry shares profound insights on trauma-informed practice, drawing from her 35 years of experience working with vulnerable children and young people. As the Director of Trauma Informed Consultancy Services Limited and author of several influential books, Dr. Cherry brings a unique perspective that combines academic knowledge, professional expertise, and powerful lived experience.

One of the most striking themes throughout the discussion is the concept of breaking intergenerational cycles. Dr. Cherry reflects on raising her own children, now 26 and 28, and how this process confronted her with her own childhood experiences. “People often talk about breaking cycles,” she notes, “and for me, it’s about breaking cycles. There are some things that just repeat, but actually there are some cycles that can be broken.” This perspective highlights the intergenerational nature of trauma work – we’re not just helping individuals in front of us but potentially influencing generations to come.

Dr. Cherry’s journey from being in care herself to becoming homeless, then eventually finding her way to university and a career advocating for vulnerable young people, provides a powerful narrative thread throughout the conversation. Her experience of writing to the director of social services as a child and making complaints in children’s homes foreshadowed her future career path. This early advocacy demonstrates how lived experience can shape professional passion and purpose, providing authentic insight that academic knowledge alone cannot offer.

Language emerged as a critical focus in the discussion. Dr. Cherry emphasizes the urgent need to address how we talk about children and young people in care systems. “The language that is used to describe children and young people is hugely problematic,” she states. “It’s hugely problematizing of those children and young people, and it shapes and forms the way that they are viewed and the way that they are seen.” This observation highlights how seemingly small linguistic choices can perpetuate harm and influence both service delivery and children’s self-perception.

Another key insight focuses on understanding behaviour as communication. Dr. Cherry challenges practitioners to recognize that children rarely have the capacity to articulate their trauma verbally. Instead, they show their struggles through behaviour. This perspective requires professionals to develop self-awareness about their own nervous system responses and relationship with shame. As Dr. Cherry explains, “It’s very, very difficult to think about behaviour as communication if you don’t have the time and space to think about how you communicate your own distress when you’re distressed.”

The podcast conversation also examines the systemic challenges facing care and education services. Dr. Cherry highlights how reduced funding, diminished capacity, and increasingly procedural approaches make genuine relational work more difficult. “We have to stop thinking about people as machines fulfilling a role,” she insists. “This is relational work. Relational work is deep, it’s meaningful, it’s connecting.” This observation points to the need for systems that prioritize connection and proper staff wellbeing to enable truly transformative work with vulnerable young people.

Dr. Cherry’s three books – “The Brightness of Stars,” “Conversations that Make a Difference for Children and Young People,” and “Weaving a Web of Belonging” – each contribute unique perspectives to the field of trauma-informed practice. Her focus on making these books accessible and practical for busy practitioners demonstrates her commitment to creating real-world impact. Her current focus on supporting the wellbeing of practitioners themselves recognizes that those doing the direct work with traumatized children need profound support themselves.

Listen here:

Watch here:

About Lisa:

Dr Lisa Cherry is the Director of Trauma Informed Consultancy Services Ltd leading a dynamic and creative organisation that provides a ‘one stop’ approach to delivering on research, consultancy and learning and development.

Lisa is an author, researcher, leading international trainer and consultant, specialising in assisting schools, services and systems to create systemic change to the way that we work with those experiencing and living with, the legacy of trauma.

Lisa has been working in and around Education and Children’s Services for over 35 years and combines academic knowledge and research with professional expertise and personal experience.

Lisa has worked extensively across many sectors with Social workers, Educators, Probation Workers and those in Adult Services, training and speaking to over 35,000 people around the world including in the US, Australia and Pakistan and across the whole of the UK.

Lisa has produced multiple pieces of research for various settings and Lisa’s own MA research looked at the impact on education and employment for care experienced adults who experienced school exclusion as children in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

In February 2024 Lisa completed her DPhil research at The University of Oxford in the Department of Education. The research asked “How do care experienced adults who were also excluded from school make sense of belonging?”

Lisa is the author of the hugely successful and award winning book ‘Conversations that make a difference for Children and Young People’ (2021), ‘The Brightness of Stars’ 3rd Edition (2022) and Weaving a Web of Belonging: Developing a Trauma-Informed Culture for All Children (2025).

Related Podcasts:

Dr Hayley Lugassy

Listen here:

Watch here:

Transcript:

Colby: 0:01

Welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Lisa: 0:04

Taking your children into adulthood is probably one of the deepest education experiences that I’ve had. People often talk about breaking cycles, breaking the cycle and for me it’s about breaking cycles. There are some things that just repeat, but actually there are some cycles that can be broken, and being able to really be present, be connected, be consistent, for my children as adults feels to me like a really beautiful breaking of a cycle. We have to stop thinking about children coming out of care and that’s the end of service. The people who are doing the work you know the direct work are giving something of themselves every time they do that, and what I’m focused on in my next book is how do we make sure that those people, that the people doing that work are looked after in a really deeply and profound way so that they can do that work?

Lisa: 1:20

We need to sort out the language. The language that is used to describe children and young people is hugely problematic. It’s very, very difficult to think about behaviour as communication if you don’t have the time and space to think about how you communicate your own distress when you’re distressed. And this is what happens when you starve systems and you reduce capacity and you take away funding and you make the work really, really intense. Unfortunately, it makes real relational work much harder.

Colby: 2:01

Welcome to the Secure Start podcast. I’m Colby Pearce, and joining me for this episode is an author, researcher and leading international trainer and consultant who specialises in assisting schools, services and systems to create change to the way that we work with those experiencing and living with the legacy of trauma. Before I introduce my guests, I’d just like to acknowledge that I’m meeting with them on Kaurna land, and I’d just also like to acknowledge the continuing connection that the living Kaurna people feel to land, waters, culture and community, and pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. My guest for this episode is Dr Lisa Cherry. Lisa is the Director of Trauma Informed Consultancy Services Limited. She leads a dynamic and creative organisation that provides a one-stop approach to delivering on research, consultancy and learning and development.

Colby: 3:12

Lisa has been working in and around education and children’s services for over 35 years and combines academic knowledge and research with professional expertise and personal experience. Lisa’s MA research looked at the impact on education and employment for care experienced adults who experienced school exclusion as children in the 1970s and 80s. In February 2024, lisa completed her Doctor of Philosophy research at the University of Oxford. The research asked how do care experienced adults who are also excluded from school make sense of belonging. Lisa is the author of the hugely successful and award winning book Conversations that Make a Difference for Children and Young People, published in 2021, as well as the Brightness of Stars, which is in its third edition, and Weaving a Web of Belonging Developing a Trauma-Informed Culture for All Children, which has been published this year. Welcome Lisa.

Lisa: 4:23

Thank you, Colby. It’s lovely to be here and thank you for such a warm introduction.

Colby: 4:30

You’re welcome. Is there anything that I left out that you think is important for our listeners to know about the work that you’ve done and continue to do?

Lisa: 4:40

Well, listen, bios are just inherently quite uncomfortable to listen to, aren’t they? Because they sound so, you know, like Formal, like yeah, they’re just like a lot, which is lovely, and at this stage of life, you would expect to have a bio that’s got quite a lot of stuff in it, because you know you’ve been yeah, I’ve been around a long time. I guess the only other thing that would be worth mentioning is that I have two adult children and I’m a grandma, and um, taking your children into adulthood is is probably one of the deepest education experiences that I’ve had.

Colby: 5:26

I’ve always said the same yeah, I mean, it’s probably our greatest achievement, isn’t it? And also our greatest. Our kids are often our greatest teachers.

Lisa: 5:38

Oh God, I mean, it’s really difficult to even talk about them without feeling emotional. You know it’s such an emotional thing and I think, when you’ve also had to recover from your own childhood experiences and felt some of the weight of that appear in your own children in that intergenerational way, that that works. That is very confronting. It’s very confronting.

Lisa: 6:12

There were periods that were like being in therapy every day you know, as as that experience is mirrored back and I’m now at a place they’re 26 and 28, and I’m now at a place where I see what’s mirrored back is more healing and more recovery and just how much connection and support your children need, with a deep, deep awareness that I had nothing like that. And so when we think about I listen to people often talk about breaking cycles, breaking the cycle, and for me it’s about breaking cycles. There are some things that just repeat, but actually there are some cycles that can be broken, and being able to really be present, be connected, be consistent for my children as adults feels to me like a really beautiful breaking of a cycle.

Colby: 7:20

Yeah, yeah, wonderful. We’ve heard some other stories on the podcast so far, one in particular in Graham Kerridge’s podcast that really reflected the significance of breaking the cycle, and it’s something that is very near and dear to my heart. It’s something that is very near and dear to my heart, and I often think that our work is intergenerational as well in its impacts. Sure, and so it’s not just the person or the people in front of us that we’re effectively working with. We’re working with their spouse, future spouses or part life partners there and their own children and grandchildren through, as you say, what transmits through, through the generations so it’s very powerful and important work that we do.

Lisa: 8:22

Yeah, I love that and I love that kind of circle of life. You know, and I always talk about healing Often we might be healing an ancestral wound we don’t even know we’re carrying. That is from somewhere completely different. And when we’re talking about children and young people who’ve experienced fractured childhoods and adoption and care and all of those things, then they’re often working with something within themselves which will appear across the life course that they might not know where that comes from, they might not know they’re even healing and that’s deep.

Colby: 9:05

And then when you bounce into the future and you start thinking about the future, those future spouses and future children I just think it’s such, it’s such a privilege and it’s such beautiful work yeah, it was interesting because, um, graham got me thinking about this and his training was as an economist and his interest was in human capital, and it was such a totally different way of thinking about the work we do, because I’m not an economist.

Colby: 9:43

In fact, um, my bank balance reflects very, very well that that that is the case, but, um, yeah, yeah, but I mean it was it’s a nice way of putting it anyway the looking at it from a human capital point of view, that I hadn’t done that before, but, yes, certainly I have been for a while, um, very much aware of that intergenerational impact of our work. Lisa, I think people who know you would know that your work in this space is influenced by personal experience growing up. Um is influenced by personal experience growing up, um, but I wonder if you, if you can perhaps say just in your own words, what got you into the work, um, that you’ve been doing this past 35 years or so?

Lisa: 10:40

yeah, I mean it’s. It’s a really interesting one, isn’t it? And, without a shadow of a doubt, my experience of being in care has, you know, provided me with my work, and I guess there are aspects of that that are part of me and my personality and the things that I care about and I’m passionate about, like you know, I remember as a very young child being very passionate about justice, being very passionate about the society that we lived in, um, and so I guess I could have gone into different avenues. I wanted to be Kate Adie. I wanted to be a war correspondent. You know I was.

Lisa: 11:22

I thought that looked absolutely amazing and, of course, going in know, doing research is is kind of like, really sophisticated. You know, I don’t know if researchers would like this, but journalism and research really sit closely together and I was always very interested by journalism and wanting to tell stories and wanting to highlight things that were wrong and that needed change, and I felt that very much growing up. But going into care of course exposes you to a world that is very different than a world that you would see if you weren’t in care. So you start being exposed to a whole range of professions you might be, you’ll be exposed to residential social workers, to foster carers, to social workers. Nowadays you’ll also have CAMHS workers and of back then also IROs, you know, an independent reviewing officer, and there’s all these different types of jobs.

Lisa: 12:29

And if you’re not really engaged in education for because you’ve got like loads of stuff going on um, then it’s almost like a kind of careers um opening up. You know there’s all these types of jobs and there’s these ways of doing things. So I think the combination of who I was and I was the sort of um child who was often writing to the director of social services and making complaints and, you know, kind of seeking justice in the in in the children’s home and stuff like that um and that combination I think, then of seeing people and also experiencing um a social worker I’m still in contact with Eunice who, who I always refer to as the the only social worker whose name I remember, you know we’d sit in her Ford Escort. I’d be crying, going why is everything so shit, and she’d be making me feel better and I thought that looks like a great. Get a ford escort and you get to make people feel better.

Colby: 13:31

Give me the ford escort bit a bit yeah, what’s not to love about that?

Lisa: 13:37

you know, so, at sort of 15, 15, 16 she. She was my social worker only for about a year and a half, but, um, very influential. Um, probably not at the time realizing how influential she was, but I kind of looked at um different social workers and thought I like I would like to do that, so that’s, those seeds were then planted. I mean, unfortunately, coming out of care I then had, I was homeless for a couple of years and I didn’t have an education because I had been expelled from schools. And you know, that came a bit later and I was lucky enough to get some funding to do a sociology degree, um, at the age of 21. Um, I had to do a couple of a levels which I was pretty diabolical at, but I obviously ticked the right boxes help me the right, help me boxes and and got into uni and and did sociology, which just further really cemented um how I felt about wanting to create change socially. Um, so, yeah, yeah and Lisa I’m.

Colby: 14:52

There’s a lot in there, but I’m the first thing that I was recalling, and I think you shared you must have shared this video at one stage was a younger version of yourself on a. Was a younger version of yourself being interviewed on a talk show about. That must be back around that time that you were at university and maybe even before. But talking about young people in care.

Lisa: 15:16

Yeah, so I guess because I was very articulate, pretty feisty and have a bit of a streak of determination in me, that did get picked up when I was younger, from different organizations and I’d been in a night shelter um around the age of 17, 18 um called Centrepoint um who are a big charity for youth homelessness in the UK and at the time a man called Nick Hardwick was the CEO and once I’d come out of that we’d kind of stayed in touch a bit. I’d been housed. I was then at uni and he asked me if I’d go on this Channel 4 programme about homelessness with John Snow, who’s an incredibly wonderful journalist, who’s retired now from his time on Channel 4 News element and wanting to create change and going through that process of being quite vulnerable. Because you know, I think when I met Nick many years later you know he said that they had only just started thinking about children coming out of care and homelessness. That actually the vision at the time so I’m going back to the late 80s, early 90s was very much that homelessness was a step you know this idea of an older male drinking.

Lisa: 16:55

You know that there wasn’t a real deep understanding about children coming out of care and being homeless, which which so many of us were, and that piece was part of a massive campaign. We did lots of things. We did Channel 4. We did lots of newspaper items and magazines and all sorts of things to really raise awareness that children were coming out of care and they were becoming homeless for lots of different reasons, you know. One of them might have been just to get as far away from that care experience as possible, thinking you can cope and you can do stuff, and not being able to Alongside. We didn’t have legislation back then that made sure that children weren’t homeless and that there were lots of options. There weren’t lots of options, actually, when you came out of care, so it was a really, really tricky time.

Colby: 17:52

Yeah, and I think it’s something that’s still being grappled with in many jurisdictions around the world. In my own local jurisdiction, um and I think you mentioned something in there that resonates with me that often my observation with young people and I’ve worked long term with the young people that I do see and will continue to see them professionally post care but oftentimes the last thing that they want is for any authority to be assisting them in any way. They just want done with the government running their lives and sadly, I mean that’s a bit of an indictment on their experience in care and also sadly sets them up for a tough run, as you experienced as well, with homelessness and various other challenges being part of their experience post-care.

Lisa: 19:03

And that’s why we have to stop thinking about children coming out of care and that’s the end of service. That has to be in the same way that you have with your own children. There has to be that ability, you know, because your own kids might turn around as well. You know, both my kids were trying to live independently long before they could and I think that’s quite a normal thing to happen. But of course there’s that elastic band, that continuous coming back. We need to really think about services in a very different way that understands the science that underpins child development, for a start, and that also understands 18 to 25 year olds in terms of a um, the, the work that’s been done around contextual safeguarding um, so that we, so that people have that opportunity to recover from some of those experiences. But they can also come back, just like your own kids can.

Colby: 20:10

Yes, and I’ve already done a podcast interview with Kiran Modi, who set up Udain Care in India, and remarkable, remarkable person and what they’ve done. And, as you say, they provide a place and people that care leavers can come back to right through to their mid-20s and beyond. They have what she called volunteer mentor parents in their residential homes who are parental figures for life for the young people that go through there. Oftentimes, I think we I wonder about this, I wonder whether in our white Western, you know, first world kind of mentality, we think we’re doing it better than um anyone else and and and uh, the challenges that we have would be the same everywhere. But um, you know, you know, my experience just very recently in talking to someone from india is that you, you can do it um very differently and provide extraordinary levels of support and opportunity for our young people.

Colby: 21:27

Um, anyway, uh, the other thing that that stood out for me in when you were talking was you talked about Eunice and her. I think it was Eunice and her Ford Escort and um, I wonder if there was any. And you also talked about um john snow, the journalist, but also the other chap put you in touch with him and um, I was wondering if there’s anyone else that you’d like to you know, acknowledge, or that you would acknowledge uh as having had a really important and significant um uh impact on you travelling this path, walking this path.

Lisa: 22:08

Yeah, I mean to be honest, I wouldn’t know where to start and I think that’s really part of our work, really, isn’t it, that people influence you along the way. I do remember somebody else I don’t know their name, but I was living in Cornwall. I’d gone down to Cornwall, I was homeless. I was. I lived across all sorts of different types of non-housing across Cornwall for for a few months before I went to London, which is where I kind of Cornwall for for a few months before I went to London, which is where I kind of uh was, was saved, if you like. Um and some journalists came down from shelter and did a piece on homelessness and as soon as I got to London, I went straight down to the shelter head office on Old Street and became a really pain in the arse volunteer um, which was, um, one of the first experiences that I had, but it was again. It was. It was a stunning experience because it was the 21st uh anniversary. So it would have been, I suppose, 1987, something like that, the 21st anniversary of Kathy Come Home. And we had this amazing event with all these very famous people, and there’s a wonderful picture of me stood next to Jeremy Irons, kind of gazing at Jeremy Irons on this stand, this podium stand, at the age of I must well, maybe I was 17, 18, and so those were the kind of things that really, really influenced me.

Lisa: 23:46

But, as I say, you can’t take away who you are as a person as well, because the first thing I did when I got to London was I’m going to find that journalist, that person who did that writing piece.

Lisa: 23:59

I want to be there, I want to do that, you know, and I think that’s why it’s so important for children, young people, to meet as many different types of people as possible.

Lisa: 24:09

I can’t remember her name, but what happened was a chain of events that led me into a campaigns department, that led me to start writing articles for their magazine, you know, all of those kind of things that really showed me where my passion was, and so, mostly across my work, I’ve never felt like I’m working because I found that passion, I found what I wanted to do, and if we can give that gift I found what I wanted to do and if we can give that gift to to young people, how incredible is that to have this exposure to so many different people with different ways of life that spark and ignite a passion that, yes, you’re not. You’re not always going to be doing the things that you really want to do, but you’re going to be in that field. So, yeah, I feel very, very fortunate and can’t ever really feel cross about the experiences that I had, because they gifted me those types of events that have given me the ability to work from a place of passion.

Colby: 25:27

Yeah, it’s a not uncommon, I guess, response from people who have experienced hardship in their life, but it has, and who have overcome it and, um, they, they wouldn’t. It’s quite common to say they wouldn’t change. Um, those difficult, you know, those things that shape those experiences, that shape them. And what’s really coming through, lisa, listening, listening to you talk, is how driven you were to, even in the latter stages of your time in care. You’re being driven to try and to stand up and say this is not good enough for me, nor my peers who are in this space.

Lisa: 26:34

Yeah, yeah, and again I feel very blessed that you know I have that within me.

Lisa: 26:41

You know you’re very focused on attachment and I absolutely believe that the first attachment relationship that I had with my grandmother was profound in terms of of my development, and you know she was present, you know she could give me things, emotionally and through that attachment relationship that I couldn’t get from my mother. You know that wasn’t and still isn’t possible, and so I have so much gratitude for that because I think if I hadn’t had her, I’d have been in care from very young, you know, and that would have brought a whole other set of challenges and difficulties and it would be as much as there are no regrets in the sense of what the experience gave me. There’s still sadness and there’s still loss and there’s still grief, and I think it’s really important to hold both of those things. And I wonder, anyway, I’ve met enough humans, many, many humans, to know that sadness, loss and grief is part of the human experience and that, whatever experiences you’ve had, invariably most people are grappling and dealing with their, their own?

Colby: 28:30

families and their own beginnings in life. Yeah, yeah. So, um, at some point you you kind of started out your your advocacy in care about the conditions within the care arrangement that you were in, and then moved to the homelessness of care leavers, post-care, and at some point in time you turned your attention to schools and, uh, the experience of of, of young people who had experienced relational trauma, and, uh, and their experience of schools. Do you mind telling us a bit about that?

Lisa: 29:17

yeah. So once I’d got my degree, I moved into um, I worked in leaving care teams, uh, for nearly 10 years and then, and then I moved into and then lots of things changed. I didn’t like it. I didn’t like it anymore. It became very admin-y, um, it lost some of the fusion with youth work that Leaving Care Work had back then, which I loved and which was very relational and consistent and it was lovely work. So I wandered across the road and went into the education department and that was a very different experience. All of a sudden, you know, know, I was not in my jeans anymore. I was, you know, covering my tattoos. It was all very, very um, I don’t know how to describe it, but it was a cut. It was a bit of a culture shock. Everyone was very proper and social work had it.

Lisa: 30:25

It’s just not, it’s not quite as proper yeah it’s got a bit of activism and it’s got some rebellion in it. It’s got, you know, social work often brings people in with all sorts of different lived experiences. Education back then was incredibly straight, um, and so I had a bit of a steep learning curve, but I met some amazing people who kind of taught me how to be in the education space, and I spent time working in schools. I spent time working with people who children and young people who were not attending school, and we would be setting up like different tutoring arrangements and alternative plans so they could stay on roll at school. It was very much about reducing exclusion, preventing exclusion. So, yes, I did that for 10 years, um.

Lisa: 31:45

So yeah, so I did that for 10 years, um, and I kind of got to a point because I also had two young bringing the body into the way that I had been thinking about the work that I was doing, and that was around 2005 2005, so 20 years ago and then I did a small piece of work with a local authority which was very much about creating services across different sectors and getting people around the table, and that was an amazing piece of work because it really taught me how long it takes to build relationships, not just the relationships that you’re having, but when you’re trying to engage other sectors, to sit around a table and talk to each other and become friends. That takes a long time, um, so that was a real gift to watch that process, um, and then it was after that, because we had we had, um a change of government and the financial crash and, uh, I also had something personal happen in my life that just threw everything open, and that’s when I became self-employed 15 years ago.

Colby: 33:08

Yeah, and you’ve been very active in that 15 years, as you likely were prior to that. Amongst other things you’ve done is you’ve written three books, which I mentioned earlier in the intro.

Lisa: 33:41

I wonder if you just would like to talk a little bit about each of those books and what particular messages they might have for children’s services and for schools. Yeah, so well. The first book was the Brightness of Stars, and I wrote that back in 2012, 2013. And I wrote it because I’d hit a bit of a roadblock. I wasn’t particularly open about my experience, I hadn’t really talked about it, but I was very aware, like lots of people who get to their kind of late 30s, early 40s, that midlife period, that it had massively influenced me and that whatever I hadn’t dealt with in the recovery journey I’d had so far, I was going to have to deal with. And that led me to think. But there must be lots of other people with this experience. Where are they? I mean, think about this there there’s no Facebook groups, there’s no social media where everyone’s connecting.

Lisa: 34:30

I think we were sort of very much at the beginning of that um, and so I had a few connections and I wanted to share stories. You know, as I where I started at the beginning of this podcast talking about sharing stories and journalism and I wanted to share stories and I’ve been fortunate enough that Routledge republished that book, because I’d self-published originally and they published it and what was beautiful about it was when I read what I’d written. It wasn’t relevant anymore. I’d written it wasn’t relevant anymore. I didn’t have those feelings about it anymore and it made me think. Everybody that was in it needs to write. What do they think about it?

Lisa: 35:11

Now, 10 years later, let’s have an exploration of the healing journey and how, at different points in your life, something really troubles you and is really defining and is really intense.

Lisa: 35:23

And 10 years later, when you’ve processed it and used writing to make sense of it and perhaps had some therapy and perhaps done some body work and all of those things, um, that help us process stuff. So there’s a there is a new section in there as well that’s more contemporary, but there’s that beautiful section at the beginning that’s got the reflections of what people had written to use earlier. So that’s wonderful. So I guess the messages in that book are about what does the experience look like and what does a healing journey look like? You know, it’s really good for people to know that over time we change and we grow and we transform and I think that that’s that’s a real gift of of the third edition. Conversations that make a difference is very much a book that infuses, as everything that I do I try and infuse, with academic knowledge, professional practice and lived experience, and that book infuses that conversations that make a difference for children and young people and the opening chapters with unis are wonderful which is wonderful, um.

Lisa: 36:39

So there’s there’s a whole range of conversations in there. It’s a lovely way of sharing conversations in a book like that, because it’s quite easy to read, and I’ve tried to make most of my books easy to read. Practitioners are busy. We haven’t got time to get through Dostoevsky, you know, like you’ve got to be able to just dip in and read something that really makes a difference and that makes you think about something in a different way. So there’s lots of reflections and then weaving a web of belonging, which has just come out this year, is very much underpinned by the research, uh, the PhD that I did, the research, um, which again was a really interesting experience.

Lisa: 37:28

There’s lots of voices in there, but writing academically is so hard and so dry, um, and it felt equally hard to strip the dryness back and create a practice book. So it’s very much underpinned by extensive research, but again, I’ve tried to make it very readable. I’ve even got some recipes in there, some grounding exercises, you know, anything that makes reading about some really difficult stuff just just a bit more manageable, because the people who are doing the work you know the direct work, um are giving something of themselves every time they do that, and what I’m focused on in my next book is how do we make sure that those people, that the people doing that work, are looked after in a really deeply and profound way so that they can do that work.

Colby: 38:39

That sounds wonderful. I look forward to reading that book as well. Lisa, I think you’ve. I mean, writing a book is a very generous thing to do, I think, and particularly when you have such extensive lived experience and knowledge and drive. And I’m really just really pleased to hear that your books do well. And see all the posts on social media of people who’ve got the latest book on belonging yeah, that’s just wonderful. If you could sit down with, you know, the heads of education or the heads of child protection, child safeguarding statutory authorities, what do you think you’d say to them?

Lisa: 39:38

So I guess I mean I’d say a lot, but I think there’s two things that I think are really important and really misunderstood. So the first thing I’d say is we need to sort out the language. The language that is used to describe children and young people is hugely problematic. It’s hugely problematizing of those children and young people and it shapes and forms the way that they are viewed and the way that they are seen. So language is the first thing. Let’s get on with a piece of work sorting that out. Let’s get on with a piece of work sorting that out.

Lisa: 40:22

And I guess the second thing that is also hugely misunderstood is that behaviour is communication. That seems to me to be such a difficult concept for people to understand. It’s almost as if people think children have an articulation of their trauma that it can take you decades to get of their trauma, that it can take you decades to get that they can somehow come and say to you I’ve got to have a chat with you later because I’m really struggling with something and I’d like to walk it through. You know, and of course that is not possible, but that’s the expectation. So when a child shows you which is what children will always do that they are struggling with something.

Lisa: 41:04

I would say that’s something that I would really like to be understood more. First, ways of understanding that is, for people to drop into their own central nervous system, their own relationship with shame and their own relationship with struggle. And if they can do that and that’s some of what I try and do with people if they can do that I try and do with people if they can do that, then that expands that space of compassion, because then there’s some compassion for self. It’s very, very difficult to think about behavior as communication if you don’t have the time and space to think about how you communicate your own distress when you’re distressed. So I think that would be what I would be looking at. Let’s give people some space for reflection. Let’s give people some space for some really good training opportunities. Let’s give people some space to drop into their own bodies, um, so that that exploration can happen.

Colby: 42:19

Yeah, I think listeners of this podcast will be very, very familiar with me saying that um, one of my um and another issue that’s very close to me, um is the fact that too many practitioners in education and also in child safeguarding are so flat out with the work that they don’t have time to stop and think about what they’re doing. And it manifests to me in a couple of things. I’ll often ask people, you know, if we, they’ll say they’ll give me the shopping list of problems with a young person and then, and I’ll say to them a couple of things, one of them would be if my intervention was successful, what would you expect to see? What would be different? And people find that very hard, very, very hard to answer because, as you say, they’re so stuck in a problem focus and talking about the problems of the children. I also say to people and I think this ties very much in with what you’re saying about just take some time to think about what it would be like we, if you were struggling, if you were having some of these experiences. I asked, I asked three questions if the child could or would, how would they truthfully describe themselves, other people and their world? How fast does their motor run and what did they learn in their first learning environments about how you get your needs met? Again, really difficult questions to answer, I’ve found, but I do think you’re right. I think, if I think, I think and again, people need time I think, if you can, if people have the time to drop in and reflect on their own experiences of struggle, or you know what it would have, what, what they can imagine it would be like to experience significant struggle. I remember the first. It was not the first time I thought about it, lisa, but it’s one of the first times that it really stood out, so much that I remember Very early in my career, mid-90s, in my first posting as a clinical psychologist doing assessments of young people, I had a young person that I was expecting to see first thing in the morning at the office, and when I arrived I used to live on one side of my home city of Adelaide and work at the far extremity of the other side and, depending on traffic in between, that journey could be elongated or otherwise.

Colby: 45:18

But anyway, I walked in and I walked into one of the at uh, the professional areas of the building and, and, and there was the young person I knew it would be her because she had a distinctive um background. So I immediately knew, ah, this must be the, the young person that’s come to see me. And I was very aware of her surroundings at that time and what she made of them and the fact that the taxi driver a taxi driver had collected her from her placement and dropped her at the office and she was about nine years old from memory. So, yeah, just really. From then on it was very much foremost in my mind the experience of our young people. It’s very hard. If you don’t give people the time to stop and reflect, then they just become very procedural and the work loses a bit of its heart and it becomes heartless and procedural. I think.

Lisa: 46:29

We have to stop thinking about people as machines fulfilling a role. You know this is relational work. Relational work is deep, it’s meaningful, it’s connecting um and so people. And this is what happens when you starve systems and you reduce capacity and you take away funding and you make the work really, really intense. Unfortunately, it makes real relational work much harder. Now I say that knowing that some areas that I work in prioritise it above all else. But it does mean that something else has to give. So there’s an intentionality when you’re thinking about belonging relationships, connection, proper staff well-being not, you know, let’s go bowling every fortnight or something, but the proper stuff that really nourishes and fills people’s cups. And you know you’re absolutely right when, when we don’t have that, then that’s where the procedural stuff comes in and burnout and secondary trauma and you know all of that stuff kicks in one other thing I just want to say I the the language we use.

Colby: 47:52

My first edition of the attachment book I. I say I wrote I didn’t write two editions. I wrote two of the attachment book. I say I wrote I didn’t write two editions. I wrote two books, the first book and the second book. They’re different books and the language is quite different. And a little example when I do, every now and then I’ve spoken to our heads of our child protection department here in my local jurisdiction department, here in my in my local jurisdiction. But I, on the language thing, I’ll say um, because one of one another thing that’s really near and dear to my heart is is the main, where possible, the maintenance and I think it’s more possible than we we think but the maintenance of good connection with birth family. So I I will say you could probably achieve a lot in terms of practice by changing one word in the sentence that is routinely said about our children and young people.

Lisa: 48:50

What’s routinely said and written is that they cannot be safely cared for at home and I say replace cannot with couldn’t or could not, and I I dare say you would, yeah, you would um notice a big, I mean language is powerful it’s so powerful and maybe could not right now, you know like allow parents the opportunity that we all afford ourselves of transformation and recovery and wellness and sobriety and all those other things you know, in a dynamic, trauma-sensitive way in the writing. You know that, but right now that wasn’t possible. That doesn’t mean it’s not possible later on. It’s just not possible now and it’s those kind of things, isn’t it’s having that, that, that eye for the life course? But services, unfortunately, are so divided and siloed into what you know how they work that the life course approach and that holistic approach is often lost. And look at us, we could talk for hours I think so we could.

Colby: 50:07

I was literally I I say to the kids, when the you know you’re supposed to say, colby, get out of my head, it’s rude, you gotta ask permission. Permission before you’re reading my mind. But you were just literally reading my mind then, lisa, because I was going to say, yes, we could talk for hours. Maybe we’ll just have to do this conversation in installments perhaps, but if you’re keen, I do give all of my guests an opportunity to ask me a question without notice at the end. We’ve heard a lot of my voice already. I’m not sure if you had something that you wanted to ask me.

Lisa: 50:46

Well, I don’t have anything to ask you today because I’ve already interviewed you on my podcast. So I asked you lots of questions. So if anybody wants to hear those questions, then I’m sure Colby will drop that episode into the show notes and you can listen to me ask you lots of questions.

Colby: 51:06

Yeah, I think I’ll do that. Well, I mean, is that a bit I’ll do it because you’ve raised it? It’s an invitation.

Lisa: 51:14

It’s an invitation and it would be lovely to share that conversation and it’s it’s been really lovely to be on the other side of that and, um, and be asked lots of questions, so thank you for having me yeah, well, thank you for agreeing and uh, yeah, I hope you have a good day and you continue to be well, lisa as well as you can be.