Urgent Care Proceedings for New-born Babies in England and Wales – Time for a Fundamental Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Emergency action to safeguard babies at birth who are at risk of significant harm is sanctioned in a number of international jurisdictions, including the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe. However, there is widespread international disquiet about this practice, regarding breaches of parents’ Articles 6 and 8 rights (Human Rights Act 1998), as well as the reliability of hasty decisions for children. This article reports the findings from the first large-scale qualitative study of professional and parental experience (n = 307 participants) of compulsory State intervention at birth, with a specific focus on urgent care proceedings. Completed in eight local authority areas and corresponding health trusts in England and Wales (2019–2021), the study concludes that children’s social care, hospitals, and the family courts are not yet sufficiently aligned around the needs of a small, but highly vulnerable population of mothers, their partners, and babies to ensure equitable, just or effective practice in cases of urgent care proceedings. Evidence is provided from both professionals and parents about the highly consequential nature of interim decisions, particularly where they result in physical separation of mother and baby at birth. The article advances knowledge about the distinctive challenges of issuing family court proceedings in the immediate post-partum period and calls for a fundamental review.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".