Biases, concerns and the erosion of rights: Addressing digital issues with adopted and fostered children in a policy vacuum
This paper analyses empirical material concerning professionals’ responses to adopted and fostered children’s use of digital technology. It describes a lack of training and policy direction, reliance on individual beliefs in safeguarding judgements, and difficulties working across stakeholders when addressing online risks and children’s rights.
Limitations: The abstract does not specify participant numbers, data-collection methods or regional recruitment. Professional judgements are not children’s direct accounts, and adoption and fostering are considered together. Findings do not quantify online harm or demonstrate that particular restrictions cause harm. Publication relationship: this research was published by BAAF or in its Adoption & Fostering journal, now associated with CoramBAAF, an adoption-sector organisation. Publication does not establish that the organisation conducted the research; readers may take the institutional relationship into account.
- Research type
- Empirical professional-practice study
- Source reviewed
- Abstract
- Peer reviewed
- Yes
- Age group
- Children / Adolescents
Study context and review
Age group as recorded: Children / adolescents
Adoption context: Mixed adoption pathways
Programme: Phippen–Bond digital safeguarding research
Institutional context: Adoption-sector advocacy/service organisation
Publication relationship: this research was published by BAAF or in its Adoption & Fostering journal, now associated with CoramBAAF, an adoption-sector organisation. Publication does not establish that the organisation conducted the research; readers may take the institutional relationship into account.
Relationship identified. Bibliographic relationships are not a bias or safety rating.
Topics: Children’s rights, digital contact, professional perspectives, social media
Review scope: Source checked: Abstract. This does not imply full-text or independent human verification.
Country as recorded: United Kingdom
- Funding
- Not yet checked for this entry
- Commissioner
- Not yet checked for this entry
- Funder role
- Not yet checked for this entry
- Declared conflicts
- Not yet checked for this entry
- Recruitment
- Not yet checked for this entry
- Adoptee involvement
- Not yet checked for this entry
Entry: study_076f10709a0e9099