Let’s Talk: Autism and Parent-Carer Blame -

Access to education, health and social care for autistic young people is impeded when families are blamed for their children’s autistic needs. For autistic families, the impact of being blamed is devastating. Blaming instead of supporting causes trauma, health decline, family breakdown and even child removal.

When blaming parents of autistic children becomes ‘needlessly nasty’, is it systemic or is it personal?

The NHS England commissioned, West Midlands-ADASS (Adult Social Services) parent-blame research project has published further findings relating to parent-blame, focusing upon professional practice to understand why parent-blame for autistic families occurs.

96 professional practitioners from the key areas of health, education and social care participated in the study. The key finding from this study is that parental-blame is not the fault of individual practice or attitude but rather a systematic issue whereby:

• autism is not fully understood,

• funding and resources are scarce,

• service design and safeguarding processes are not right for autistic families,

• practice is influenced by wider national portrayals / analysis of autism and autistic people,

• professional culture allows for parent-blame to occur.

The study finds that practitioners with lived experience of caring for or being an autistic person reduces blame towards parents.

The study makes some recommendations to challenge current systemic issues, such as:

• providing early, needs led support,

• mandatory training in autism (no specification as to whether this will be clinical or affirming-led training),

• multi-agency accountability,

• the fostering of relationship-based practice,

• and for systems-change to be co-produced with autistic people.

Here is the full report: Exploring Perspectives on Autism - Project Report.

The publication of this report (coincidentally) coincides with national media press coverage of ‘whistle blowing’ accounts describing how SEND workers really speak about the disabled children they have a statutory duty to support, when ‘behind closed doors’. SEND caseworkers were reported to have laughed and joked about denying support to children - Managers told council staff to delay access to SEND support and laughed about it, whistleblower says | ITV News.

Similarly, the Sun media outlet reports upon the “callous” ways families of autistic children have been “blocked” from receiving support - How cash-strapped councils are mocking disabled children & 'putting up brick wall to difficult parents' begging for help. The article details how SEND practitioners (allegedly) laughed and belittled and behaved in “disparaging” and “flippant” ways towards the parents of children they had a duty to support.

Both articles point to the way in which parental-blame has become embedded within a toxic professional culture developed in response to an uneducated and cash-starved system where resources are scarce and autism (in particular) is grossly misunderstood.

In 2023, myself and Danielle Jata-Hall published the findings of our survey (of 1016 parent-carers to autistic-PDA children) - ‘Parental Blame and the PDA Profile of Autism’. We pointed to similar systemic failures within SEND-related practice, specifically pointing to how “local authorities are often without adequate monies to fund assessments and correct support packages, within this context the widespread use of parental blame could be seen as a strategy to limit access to services”.

However, I feel there is a difference between the use of parental-blame as a gatekeeping tool to preserve scarce resources, and individual professionals being needlessly nasty towards individual parents. Access to support can be obstructed by service professionals, and this can be explained by adherence to internal practice guidelines and motivated bias to do so (job insecurity), but how do we explain the sometimes nasty ways in which this is done?

We know that “parental blame is not an isolated issue … rather it is a systemic phenomenon that emerges at the intersection of workforce capability, service design, organisational culture and safeguarding practice…” (Hollingsworth, D & Ferguson, L, 2026, Exploring Perspectives on Autism - Project Report). And I do not disagree with this. But this analytical understanding does not perhaps fully take into account the manner in which some blaming responses are delivered to parents and families of autistic children, using unprofessional language and behaviour, and through verbal attacks on individual parents.

I have sat in meetings where heads of service-departments have surreptitiously flashed ‘f-you’ fingers at me (held against their cheek). I have been on the receiving end of sarcastic comments, directed to imply that my personality is at fault. Such behaviour isn’t about raising legitimate concern, or even obstructing access to resources, it is simply petty, nasty and childish.

Can professional working culture and external media influence fully explain the cruelty embedded within some individual responses to parents seeking support? For many parents, professional-practitioner conduct towards them feels personal.

Professionals enter SEND service areas as a ‘vocation’, rather than a ‘wage’ - SEND related roles are roles where humanity is the driving force to help and support potentially vulnerable people. It is frightening to me how some of these professionals resort to uncaring and nasty responses. Is it that individual kindness in daily practice is driven away by service pressures and the wider anti-disabled agenda pushed out by government initiatives around welfare reform? Is it that individual incidents of spiteful and callous professional practice are so normalised within a wider toxic culture of professional practice, that individuals hold no responsibility for how they have treated families of disabled children? Yes, parental-blame is systemic and change needs to occur at a system-wide level to improve access to good support for autistic people and their families, but should this mean we avoid looking at individual bad-practice and holding those individuals accountable for such?

Please do let me know your thoughts on this:

Leave a comment

Need some support?

I offer both parent-carer support services and consultancy services for organisations and services working with autistic people, including advice and consultancy on issues raised within this post.

Email: alicerunningadvocacy@gmail.com

Share

Subscribe now

Let’s Talk: Autism and Parent-Carer Blame -

Access to education, health and social care for autistic young people is impeded when families are blamed for their children’s autistic needs. For autistic families, the impact of being blamed is devastating. Blaming instead of supporting causes trauma, health decline, family breakdown and even child removal.

When one parent doesn’t accept their child’s autism diagnosis - does it really matter?

Denial, disagreement and rejection around the assigning of the label ‘autism’ for an autistic child, and by a parent, is often argued to be ‘par for the course’ for families navigating autism assessment pathways for their child(ren). But why are these responses considered ‘normal’? And when does this ‘normality’ of response become harmful for the child (and the accepting parent)?

The pathway towards acceptance …

When one of my children received their clinical autism diagnosis I was given a handout illustrating an ‘arc towards acceptance’. At this juncture I did not need to work towards acceptance - half my family were already identified as autistic and any acceptance I would have needed to foster, would have been around a diagnostic conclusion that my child was NOT autistic. The illustration however, was informative and clearly intended to support parents who may have felt sorrow, grief, or disbelief around their child being given an autism diagnosis.

In clinical terms, parental acceptance of a diagnosis for their child is referred to as resolution - a concept that encompasses the process by which parents are able to release their idealised and preconceived expectations for their future child and embrace the reality of a disability or neurodivergence. For some parents, resolution is a swift and painless journey, for others, resolution takes time. Feelings of grief, guilt and shame may be present for some parents upon their child receiving a diagnosis of autism; these feelings are often embodied responses to how society and culture generally positions autistic people as less than, impaired or deviant. Some parents may have struggled to recognise their child as autistic prior to any assessment process, especially if neurodivergent or autistic themselves.

Naicker et al. (2023) report that a prior lack of knowledge around autistic-ness impacts how easily parents come to accept a diagnosis, writing that “parental self-education about autism was found to be a protective factor” (p.5) - (an important conterpoint to the systems-led FII (fabricated and induced illness) obsession which scrutinises parents for holding knowledge of autism in relation to their autistic children, and positions them instead as dangerous and harmful (Clements and Aiello, 2023).)

Gentles et al. (2020) advocate for a systems-led sensitive approach to working with parents who may not yet fully accept their child’s autistic identity, recognising that parents are ready for engagement around ‘care-planning’ at differing times.

Where’s the harm in not accepting an autism diagnosis?

Naicker et al. (2023) found a link between non-resolution, higher levels of parenting stress and a greater risk of an insecure parent-child attachment, noting that swift familial acceptance increased whole-family well-being. In particular, “resolved mothers were seen to be emotionally available, reporting less anxiety and depression” (p.5).

Delayed acceptance and the holding on to a grief around an idealised child ‘lost’, is noted as being more common among fathers (Gentles et al., 2020), for which, Gentles et al. (2020) argue, autism-service-providers should recognise and respond to in a sensitive manner. I recall being told by a CAMHS practitioner that it was perfectly normal for my child’s father to not readily accept the given autism diagnosis because ‘men tend to find it emasculating’.

I find it interesting that (public and child welfare) services undertake aligned understanding with an unresolved parent when for a child, the potential for emotional harm (through denial, rejection of a diagnosis and grief) is present. Child services are notoriously quick to respond to concerns around future emotional harm when it relates to parental expertise and advocacy - repositioned as ‘fabricated or induced illness’ or ‘parental obstruction’ and predominantly in response to mothers of autistic children (Bilson, 2025; Clements & Aiello, 2023; Hollingsworth & Ferguson, 2023). The consideration that a parental rejection of an autism diagnosis may equate to harm, remains largely under discussed within safeguarding arenas. Grief over a child being autistic is more than a rejection of a diagnosis, it is a rejection of their personhood. So, when does the rejection of an autistic child’s personhood become important enough for public services to consider this an emotional harm?

Delayed parental resolution and safeguarding implications …

For some parents, resolution and acceptance does not come easily. Often, unresolved parents seek alternative explanations to counter the legitimacy of a clinical diagnostic conclusion, perhaps seeking a second opinion (Naicker et al., 2023). For separated parents, this may bring families into the remit of family court arenas, with one parent seeking a judicial decision upon matters. An unresolved parent may allege that the resolved parent is harming an autistic child through their advocacy of affirming, autism practice or their seeking of further specialist assessment, support or education. Interacting with family court systems brings further turmoil and upheaval for autistic families, impacting the emotional and financial well-being of the resolved parent. Matters around child contact with the unresolved parent may not consider the appropriateness of ordering contact with a parent who actively rejects an autism diagnosis through the rejection of accommodations or adjustments relating to the child’s neurodivergence. The litigation pathway of the family court does not necessarily consider the nuances and importance around diagnostic and identity acceptance for autistic children, perhaps placing these considerations secondary to ensuring contact occurs with both parents.

Gentles et al. (2020) report specific instances where unresolved fathers cause significant obstruction in support for their autistic child:

“…in many cases it was the father who remained resistant … even after the child was positively diagnosed … the denial behaviours … became a barrier, reducing the mother’s motivation and capacity to take action … some fathers were in such denial they obstructed the mothers’ pursuit of a diagnosis … by terminating access to financial resources or transportation.” (p.477)

The above-mentioned behaviour is controlling and should be identified for what it is - when an unresolved parent allows their rejection of an autism diagnosis to influence their behaviour towards their child and the other parent, through a pattern of controlling behaviours, then safeguarding systems should recognise this as harmful. However, as demonstrated in my 2023 report - Parental Blame and the PDA Profile of Autism: The Experiences of Domestic Abuse Survivors - child welfare services may not recognise harmful patterns of control when manifesting as a non-acceptance of autism, with several mothers reporting that child welfare services utilised the unresolved parenting position to ‘double down’ on blaming the resolved parent.

Supporting parents to accept and adjust to an autism diagnosis for their child …

Naicker et al. (2023) suggest that by adopting a strengths-based understanding of autism, parental resolution can be fostered quicker. Some assessment pathways present their diagnostic conclusions using affirmative language and pointing to how each individual autistic child has specific strengths, as well as areas for support. Similarly, some children’s service areas are adjusting their language to become more affirmative in recognition of neurodiversity-based frameworks of understanding. However, a strengths-based understanding of autism is perhaps beyond universal deployment when diagnostic criteria remain so closely aligned with what is ‘lacking’ for an autistic person and in comparison with a non-autistic person. And it is perhaps this persistent comparison with non-autistic people that underpins a systems-led failure to recognise the potential for harm for an autistic child in having a parent persistently deny their autistic personhood - if society upholds non-autistic-ness as the ideal norm, then society may consider it right to empathise with a parent who also aligns with this view by denying their autistic child’s difference.

Bilson, A. (2025). Patterns of Service for Disabled Children in English Social Care. Journal of Social Work, 14680173251398959.

Clements, L., & Aiello, A. L. (2023). The prevalence and impact of allegations of Fabricated or Induced Illness (FII). Cerebra, University of Leeds.

Ferguson, L. & Hollingsworth, D. (2023). Blamed Instead of Helped: How parents of autistic children experience parental blame when they approach services for support - WM Adass Autism and Parental Blame Project – Blamed Instead of Helped

Gentles, S. J., Nicholas, D. B., Jack, S. M., McKibbon, K. A., & Szatmari, P. (2020). Coming to understand the child has autism: A process illustrating parents’ evolving readiness for engaging in care. Autism, 24(2), 470-483.

Naicker, V. V., Bury, S. M., & Hedley, D. (2023). Factors associated with parental resolution of a child's autism diagnosis: A systematic review. Frontiers in psychiatry, 13, 1079371.

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Need some support?

I offer both parent-carer support services and consultancy services for organisations and services working with autistic people, including advice and consultancy on issues raised within this post.

Email: alicerunningadvocacy@gmail.com

Let’s Talk: Autism and Parent-Carer Blame.

Access to education, health and social care for autistic young people is impeded when families are blamed for their children’s autistic needs. For autistic families, the impact of being blamed is devastating. Blaming instead of supporting causes trauma, health decline, family breakdown and even child removal.

Social Rejection and Social Inclusion for Autistic Children in School:

A few years ago I was sat in a hairdressers chair, with wet hair and at the mercy of the stylist. A news item played on the radio; parents of an autistic child were upset that not one of the invited classmates had attended their child’s birthday party. The internet had rallied around and sent plentiful amounts of birthday cards to compensate. The hairstylist said to me, ‘I blame the parents’. These were her exact words. She expanded without my prompting, ‘it’s the parents job to socialise their child properly’.

The exchange stored itself in my memory, for it neatly epitomized how society often rejects autistic folk and blames them (and their families) for this rejection, for not trying hard enough to meet the standards and expectations created by non-autistic folk.

By de-centring autistic perspectives of social rejection, solutions created to tackle issues around social isolation may instead focus on what the individual or family unit can do better to interact or engage with social opportunities. Such an approach may only serve to compound feelings of rejection, exclusion and isolation for an autistic person.

What does social rejection in the school arena look like?

My own experiences of primary school life allowed me to make some pertinent observations about school-playground culture. There are always some children who are sidelined and left out. And parents do contribute to this. Not the parents of the child who is rejected (who often work hard to find friends for their child), but the parents of the children who reject. The two often tally.

Parents form cliques at drop-off and pick-up, and they decide between themselves who’s children to invite for play-dates and who’s children to steer their own children away from. This transfers into the school setting when parents have left for the day.

In school, this may appear as some children quietly avoiding a particular child, rather than overt episodes of bullying. It may show up when birthday invitations are given out - a particular child may always be left out. It may show up when children are divided into partnerships or groups, and children vocalise their preferences. For school staff this may appear as normal every-day life. For autistic children, this may be experienced as strongly as any overt form of bullying. Rejection hurts. And when rejection is repeated, and from the same groups of children (people), this has the potential to be emotionally harmful.

When I was navigating school social life for my children (a decade ago - and I would hope that such experiences have lessened as understanding of neurodivergence has increased), it was clear that many parents avoided and excluded neurodivergent children who were perceived as different and that this difference was seen as behavioural, therefore a parenting issue.

School-led initiatives for social inclusion focus upon resilience building. Or perhaps the teaching of non-autistic social skills. (1). Strategies that focus upon social-skills-building fail autistic children because they ask an autistic child to be less autistic in order to fit in better. Peer rejection (the exclusion of autistic children by non-autistic children) has been linked to the forming of negative impressions by non-autistic children about autistic children (1). Therefore, ‘interventions’ that focus on improving an autistic child’s ability to socially engage may fail due to a lack of focus on how acceptance and school-wide inclusion should be improved (1). Approaches dictating what ‘normal’ social interactions are, place the responsibility for change within the autistic child themselves and ignore the wider social perceptions of autism that are transferred from ‘the outside world’.

Parents report encountering difficulties when advocating for their autistic child around social rejection because social rejection consists of a pattern of behaviour towards a child, rather than overt and observable instances of bullying. School staff are trained to recognise overt forms of bullying, but are less skilled in recognising the wider patterns of social exclusion that exist for autistic people. Ramifications occur when schools are asked to comment upon an individual child’s social integration (for an autism assessment, or social care assessment), leading to a school setting being unable to corroborate a parental or child-led account of rejection and exclusion.

We have safeguarding back-to-front.

I am not denying the importance of social inclusion for autistic children. Research literature reports how “loneliness in autistic children is associated with lower levels of self-worth, heightened levels of social anxiety, and a higher likelihood of depression in adolescence [and that] reported loneliness among autistic children increases across development” (1). However, assessing a child’s social integration through the lens of what a family unit (or individual child) could be doing better, misses the wider social contexts - the social barriers that often prevent social inclusion from happening.

Encouraging an autistic child to make more effort for example, or judging a parent for not forcing attendance at a social activity, misses the ‘wider picture’. Such narrow-focused assessment does not consider the cumulative exhaustion that accrues for an autistic person who has repeatedly tried to access social spaces. Nor does a family focused assessment consider the accessibility of any given social space that leads to such cumulative exhaustion. Family focused assessments determine what constitutes ‘good enough’ social integration, without perhaps considering the varying levels of social motivation for an individual child, or indeed the best way to enable that. In short, family focused assessments around social integration are too generic - they focus upon the family unit but are neither specific enough to understand the individual needs of an autistic child nor wide-focusing enough to assess how environments and majority-thinking exclude autistic folk.

What needs to be done better?

Service professionals assessing autistic social need should be cautious around expecting social motivation to be the same for all autistic people, comparable to non-autistic people, and assuming that reduced social motivation for autistic people is intrinsic to their neurology (ie, intrinsically less than their non-autistic peers purely on account of being autistic). Rather, social motivation for autistic folk is complex with multiple factors (including access to healthy spaces and autistic burnout) affecting motivation.

Research into social connection for autistic folk supports this analysis, stating that all people (not just a focus on autistic people doing better) are needed to help enhance autistic social outcomes (2). Autistic people do experience dissatisfaction with their social lives and do experience loneliness and reduced well-being as a consequence (2). Support strategies which focus upon encouraging autistic folk to socially connect more, may only be encouraging autistic folk to mask their authentic selves. Autistic people report that social camouflaging does not effectively support friendship building and results in exhaustion (2).

Loneliness is said to form via two separate interaction types; “social loneliness refers to the absence of accessible social networks and peer groups, which provide companionship and a sense of belonging. Meanwhile, emotional loneliness refers to the absence of close, intimate friends or people that one can turn to for support” (1).

Strategies to improve social connected-ness for autistic folk should therefore focus upon these two strands - the creation of truly accessible social spaces and networks and the strengthening of individual relationships through a double-empathy approach (what non-autistic folk can do better).

“Future interventions may therefore need to also focus on the development of reciprocal, high-quality friendships among autistic children … future interventions should not solely focus on teaching autistic students the social skills to “fit in,” but should also focus on the acceptance of autistic children by their non autistic peers” (1).

Creating better environments for fostering autistic connection and minimising social rejection.

I firmly believe that the best way to combat loneliness and social isolation for autistic folk is to design better social spaces. For me, a well-designed social space does not just focus on being accessible for autistic people (through adaptations and accommodations, for example), but creates a ‘level playing field’ - a social arena where there is less need for awareness and acceptance of perceived difference because the social environment works for both autistic and non-autistic minds at a structural level.

Absolutely, there is a need for better understanding and changes to practice, certainly within school environments - for example, class teachers should not assist in the delivery of party invites unless it is a whole-class invite. And I would especially welcome a school-led behaviour policy that focuses upon parental conduct in and around school-home transition spaces (social exclusion is modeled by parents). But for autistic people to feel truly valued, included and wanted in social spaces, better design is needed. It is not enough to only turn off the big light and offer a pair of ear defenders.

A few suggestions to improve social access for autistic folk within school spaces:

• Monitor online activities - for example, whole class access to platforms such as Minecraft. Although such activities can foster social inclusion for both autistic and non-autistic children, bullying and ostracisation still occur within gaming spaces. Utilise moderators and create structured activities within these spaces to scaffold good social inclusion.

• Create mandatory non-speaking class discussions using software such as Padlet, where pupil or student responses are collected via a virtual ‘notepad’, with the teacher reading and feeding back on responses. Non-speaking class discussions are fantastic for non-speaking folk and for people (like me) who struggle with anxiety at speaking in public - the children who’s school report always reads, ‘they need to put their hand up more’!

• Create school-based clubs and activities that ‘level the playing field’ - silent discos / board-game club / Uno championships / special interest clubs (different topic each term?) / crafting and building activities …

• Create alternatives to big school occasions such as ‘sports day’ or ‘leavers prom’. Alternatives to ‘sports day’ could include quiet, inside cycling (exercise bikes, or gym circuits) or library-based ‘readathons’. Free choice should be permitted and alternatives should not just be utilised for autistic pupils but made as an open offer to all children.

Social inclusion for autistic folk is about creating a good environment - and conveying information that demonstrates to autistic people they are really included, valued and wanted. If all the work is left to the autistic person or their caregivers, then the implicit message is that it is up to the child to be included, which ultimately places a child at fault for not trying, or not trying hard enough - which is blame. When ‘trying’ is not about not wanting to, but about it being intrinsically difficult to do so, then retreat is often the safest option.

If any of the above resonates with you or your family, please leave a comment :) I would also love to read examples of inclusion done well :)

Leave a comment

(1) Libster, N., Knox, A., Engin, S., Geschwind, D., Parish-Morris, J., & Kasari, C. (2023). Sex differences in friendships and loneliness in autistic and non-autistic children across development. Molecular autism, 14(1), 9.

(2) Ridgway, K., Cooke, K., Demmer, D. H., Hooley, M., Westrupp, E., & Stokes, M. A. (2025). Camouflaging autism in pursuit of friendship and intimate relationships: A systematic review. Autism in Adulthood, 7(5), 543-557.

Work with me:

I offer both parent-carer support services and consultancy services for organisations and services working with autistic folk, including advice and consultancy on inclusion.

Email: alicerunningadvocacy@gmail.com

Subscribe now

Share

Let’s Talk: Autism and Parent-Carer Blame.

Access to education, health and social care for autistic young people is impeded when families are blamed for their children’s autistic needs. For autistic families, the impact of being blamed is devastating. Blaming instead of supporting causes trauma, health decline, family breakdown and even child removal.

What does ‘parent blame’ do to an autistic child?

When parents are blamed for their autistic children’s ways-of-being, it is children who are central to these situations. A judgement made about a parent, is also a judgement made about a child in that moment of observation. When a judgement is made about an observed ‘behaviour’, that judgement further relates to a wider perception of ‘autism’.

The interconnection between judgement of ‘behaviour’, perceptions of ‘autism’ and parent-blaming must surely impact how a child begins to view both the world around them, and their own sense of being?

A child’s experience of being central to these moments is perhaps overlooked. The harm that erroneous safeguarding investigations may have upon a child is predominantly filtered through the experiences of the parents. It is rare that the voices of autistic young people are represented in discussions about parental blame.

We know that where parental blame (in relation to the parenting of autistic children) exists, this often coincides with systemic issues around the misunderstanding of what autism is and isn’t, and ergo a misunderstanding around what good parenting is (for autistic folk). Such misunderstandings and theoretical ignorance impact practice across many related professions, and studies into parent-blame highlight how bad-for-autistic-folk practice, negatively impacts recipient children.

Parental accounts of their children retreating further into distress and burnout (including devastating experiences of suicidal thinking and self-harm), and following safeguarding interventions, describe how harmful experiences of parent blame can be for autistic children.

To study the full impact of parent-blaming-narratives and those experiences upon autistic young people, would need substantial ethical consideration. To ask young people directly about their experiences around familial blame, creates a risk around re-traumatising young people, and would need to be sensitively managed with any findings presented in a non-exploitative way.

However, that the direct voices of young people are missing from the growing body of study into parental blame, should be addressed.

So …

What are the likely impacts for children at the centre of parent-blaming experiences?

GUILT?

Do autistic children experience feelings of guilt because they observe how other adults around them speak to their parents? Do autistic children position themselves as the cause for how other adults treat their parents?

For example, how do autistic children perceive a sarcastic comment from reception staff when brought late into school, because the morning routine was all too much for them? How is a passing comment about how parents should increase discipline, for example, interpreted by the child stood alongside their parents?

How do autistic children experience the pressure of knowing they must attend that very important appointment, but are unable to do so?

‘My parents seem to be upset. My parents seem to be in trouble. This seems to have something to do with me. Am I doing something wrong? Is this all my fault?’

Children may not always be able to process such feelings into concise and externalised thoughts, but these feelings may exist none-the-less.

Regardless of how carefully the adults around a child may try to shield a child from thinking they are at fault, children soak up atmosphere. Children often instinctively know that something is wrong without needing to be explicitly told. (Yes, autistic people pick up cues from the social world around them.)

Succinctly, how far do autistic children blame themselves for the blame they observe their parents receiving?

IDENTITY and INTERNALISATION?

How do autistic children - who experience blame being directed towards their parents - make sense of their own autistic identity? Knowing that they are not ‘acting up’ or ‘resisting’ in a willful manner, but are trying their best to please the adults around them, but just can’t always do so. How does a child or young person begin to view themselves? Do negative self-impressions begin to form?

Whether or not the ‘naughty’ word is used, autistic children are regularly given expectations by the non-autistic people around them. Autistic children may hold an awareness that these expectations carry consequence for their parents - school attendance fines, exclusions, referrals. Failure to meet these expectations may impact a child or young person’s own self-confidence and self-belief.

And how do such non-autistic expectations affect how autistic children view ‘autism’?Does ‘autism’ become synonymous with ‘being bad’, for them? And does the rejection of an autistic identity follow, for some children?

Research literature around parent blame predominantly presents the experiences of families who accept their autistic identity and are largely able to rationalise service-led blaming responses as external to their internal identity. But what about the children who do not share this ability to externalise blaming narratives? How are their views captured? How can we measure the impact of parental blame upon autistic children’s views of ‘autism’ in relation to their own identity?

MENTAL HEALTH and WELL-BEING?

The emotional turmoil around navigating SEND and autism-related pathways, especially when personal and financial family resources are needed to secure access or defend against parent blame, may weigh heavily upon involved children. Research and study clearly identify the costs to child mental health of exposure to high-conflict-environments. Studies further link navigating autism-service-support with elevated stress levels for the navigating parents. Logic suggests that the children at the centre of family-vs-professional service conflict, could also be indirectly exposed to high-level conflict.

Children soak up their familial emotional landscape; if a parent is stressed out because of receiving blame instead of appropriate support, then surely a child will absorb these emotions also?

DISTRUST?

How is blaming a child’s parents conducive to creating a good professional-child relationship with an autistic child? Relationship building is a crucial precursor to effective support for many autistic children, who need access to a safe and secure person in order to thrive. Professional-child relationship building with autistic children is undermined if a professional is in conflict with the care-givers around a child; autistic children absorb tension. Additionally, if there is conflict or differences between parents and professionals in preferred communication approaches (perhaps based upon professional-led misunderstanding around an autistic child’s individual needs), then relationship building is further impacted.

When safety within these relationships is not built, does distrust form?

There are many circumstances where distrust could emerge for a child engaged within autism support services - cancelled appointments, change of key professionals, over persistence to engage, utilising the wrong communication approaches etc.

Ill-informed practice creates mistrust between an autistic child and a practitioner; blaming parents compounds this mistrust, as for the majority of autistic children, their parents are their safe people who have built trust by being consistent, and honing a communication approach that works.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARENTS?

The voices of parents detail how being blamed has impacted their relationships with their children; parents share how, in having to comply with service-led approaches (rather than autistic-aligned approaches), their bond with their child has become fractured. Parents describe how the pressure of receiving blame, placed them into a position where adhering to service-led instructions (in terms of parenting) felt tantamount to abusing their child (because of the harm a non-autistic-aligned approach may present to an autistic child).

How do children experience this? Do autistic children reflect upon these moments in the same way as their parents? Do autistic children experience service-led and non-autistic-aligned practice as abusive? And what is the longer term impact of this? Are parent-child relationships irreversibly damaged?

These considerations are not made to levy further blame upon parents of autistic children, rather, they are made to bring further attention to the logical assumption that when parent blame is used, it is the children that suffer the most.

The parents I work with, and the parents that participate in research and study into the phenomenon of parent-blame, demonstrate clear insight into how blaming narratives may harm their children. And many parents take active steps to protect their children from blaming experiences and harmful autism-practice.

Through educating themselves, advocating for their children’s individual needs and rejecting approaches that could harm an autistically, developing mind, parents demonstrate a clear commitment to protecting their children’s well-being.

Simply put, parents of autistic folk hold their children’s best interests as central, despite this often placing them within vulnerable positions when navigating autism support services.

Perhaps if service provision began to consider how autistic children may be harmed through the process of blaming their parents, more successful ways-of-working with families could be built?

Subscribe now

Share

If you would like to read more of my work around autism and blame, please feel free to browse my published works at www.alicerunningautismadvocacy.com, where I also offer parent support and professional consultancy services.

alicerunningadvocacy@gmail.com

In this second ‘special edition’ newsletter (to coincide with the publication of ‘We Need To Talk About Autism and Parent-Carer Blame’,) I am sharing with you details of current, on-going and future projects which seek to challenge differing aspects of parent-carer blame within autism support provision.

It’s important for autistic children that this aspect of navigating autism support services is both fully understood and discussed widely.

If you have capacity to become involved with any of the projects detailed below, I encourage you to do so :) The voices of many create change!

The Campaign | Withdraw FII Campaign

A collection of like-minded academics and professionals (including clinical psychologists, social workers and authors) are pooling their work and professional credentials to campaign against the overuse of fabricated or induced illness allegations (FII). Allegations of FII disproportionately affect disabled families, with autistic mothers in particular being susceptible to this type of serious blame.

The campaign calls for:

Immediate withdrawal of the FII label and associated guidance

Creation of new, evidence-based frameworks co-produced with disabled people and parent carers

Professional training that promotes collaborative, family-centred practice, and understanding of disability and distress

A review by regulatory bodies—including the GMC, Royal Colleges, and NICE—of any guidance legitimising the use of FII

Judicial caution in accepting FII allegations without rigorous factual analysis and greater scrutiny of expert witness testimony.

Supporters of the campaign are asked to ‘sign-up’ by adding their name (or pseudonym) to an open letter. The website provides a large evidence-base in support of their ‘call to action’.

The PDA Society are currently mid-way through a parent-led project - ‘The Connecting, Creating and Collaborating Project’:

The overall aim of the project is to challenge and change how professionals work with parents, specifically to reduce and prevent experiences of parental blame. The project, in collaboration with parent-carers, is developing practical ways to help professionals reflect on their own practice and behaviour, with the overall aim to work with families more constructively and respectfully.

The culmination for this project is an online presentation for service professionals, hosted by the PDA Society, where an evidence-based approach to strengthening relationships with families will be shared.

The presentation includes ways to:

• re-engage with families where trust has broken down,

• improve outcomes for PDA children and young people,

• reduce reliance on repeated, high-cost interventions that deliver limited impact.

This event is for professionals only. To register an interest in attending or to request an invitation for a professional, please contact lorna.parle@pdasociety.org.uk

Ghost Parents Research Project:

The project is described as:

”’Ghost Parents’ are parents who have had to step away from work because their child’s needs, often linked to neurodivergence, mental health, or unmet support needs, are not being successfully met within existing systems, particularly education.

Many families end up quietly carrying an enormous amount of responsibility, often feeling unseen while they try to hold things together for their child.

The aim of this research is straightforward. We want to better understand these experiences and work towards practical, community informed approaches that can help children reconnect with meaningful education and support parents to return to employment if they wish.

Over the coming months we will be:
• interviewing parents about their experiences
• inviting some parents to join a Ghost Parents Advisory Group to help shape the direction of the work
• launching an online questionnaire to hear from a wider group of families
• continuing a review of the existing research evidence
• developing a project website, which will be live soon

This project is being led by the University of Glasgow and is very much about listening first. We want to learn from families about what has helped, what has not, and what might need to change.

If you are a parent who recognises this experience, or an organisation who works closely with families in this situation, please keep an eye out for the questionnaire and information about how to get involved.”

More details will follow shortly via Jason Lang | LinkedIn and Melea Press | LinkedIn

Amy Griffiths, a Human Right’s researcher from Swansea University:

is “seeking to learn about the experiences of autistic mothers who have had social work involvement within the past 5 years:

• Mother includes birth mother, stepmother, same-sex partner, adoptive mother, foster carer, or kinship carer, etc.

• Autistic includes mothers who self-identify, as well as those who are diagnosed.

• You need to have had children’s social work involvement in the past five years.

• You need to be aged 18 or over and living in the UK to take part.

If you want to take part, please fill in this short form, which asks a few questions about you. It should take no more than 10 minutes, depending upon your answers: https://lnkd.in/eYeX7QCu

This is so that I can ask a variety of people from different backgrounds if they'd like to take part in the study.

Everybody will have the chance to answer a survey in about a year’s time.

If you have any questions or want more information, email me at 2436659@swansea.ac.uk”

The Palgrave Handbook of Neuroinclusive Social Work:

Edited by Hanna Bertilsdotter-Rosqvist, Lesley Deacon and Jenni Guthrie, this title will be released in MAY 2026 and:

• Explores neuroinclusivity across all aspects of the social work profession: education, theory, research, and practice

• Includes lived-experience perspectives from those who experienced social work, either accessing or providing services

• Challenges the medical model to promote a neuroaffermative, ethical and epistemologically sound approach to social work.

As an advocate against the use of parent-blaming narratives within autism service provision, this collection of works will be transformative for both social work practice and for those families needing social work support.

“This handbook brings together experts by lived experience, educators, practitioners and researchers to present a transformative, neuro-inclusive approach to social work. Emphasizing the importance of developing and implementing neuroaffirmative perspectives in social work education, practice, and research, it advocates for neuro-inclusive and equitable social work practice with neurodivergent people who access social work services and those who provide them.

This groundbreaking volume delves into critical themes, including the role of neurodivergent social workers, the impact of systemic conditions, epistemic injustice, and the importance of culturally sensitive community-informed research. Offering recommendations, reflexive activity and frameworks, this handbook is essential reading and an invaluable resource for students, educators, academics, practitioners and researchers in social work and related professions.”

The Palgrave Handbook of Social Work Practice includes a chapter contribution by myself (Alice Running) - Towards competency, not blame: Reflections upon social work practice with autistic families. A parent-carer perspective - where I reflect upon how misunderstandings and misconceptions around autistic ways-of-being lead to the wrong conclusions and ‘support’ offers being made and offer alternative understandings to enhance social work practice.

Many thanks for reading!

Please feel free to contact me with suggestions for future newsletters, or to share details of other projects which examine the use of blame within autism service provision.

To purchase a copy of my new book:

We Need to Talk About Autism and Parent-Carer Blame | Jessica Kingsley Publishers - UK

20% off using CODE: %RUNNING20 via uk.jkp.com

Best wishes as always,

Alice X

www.alicerunningautismadvocacy.com

alicerunningadvocacy@gmail.com

Subscribe now

Share

Blaming parents for their autistic children’s way’s-of-being, rather than offering understanding, support or useful provision, is a common experience for many autistic families. Studies demonstrate that around 88% of families navigating autism support pathways have experienced blame instead of help.

For parent-carers of school-age autistic children, receiving blame and judgment can feel like a never-ending nightmare. From playground comments and social ostracisation to serious allegations of harming their child, parent-carers of autistic children are blamed in ways the rest of the non-autistic world may never realise.

“Parents of autistic children are often subject to scrutiny of their parenting strategies. At best this can be exhausting and intrusive; at worst it can lead to formal accusations of harm. The consequence is a society where autistic families are unable to access the correct services for their children, increasing risk of family burnout and breakdown.

Based on the author's lived experience, this book looks at the different ways blame can manifest and how parents can manage these moments. It identifies when and why professionals may incorrectly raise safeguarding concerns without understanding the context of neurodivergence and how professional practice can be improved.”

‘We Need To Talk About Autism and Parent-Carer Blame’ investigates HOW and WHY parent-blame occurs for autistic families, and WHAT we can all do about it.

In keeping with this, I answer some common questions about autism and parent-carer blame …

Answering common questions about autism and parent-carer blame:

We had a meeting for our child who hasn’t been able to get into school for three weeks. My child was in the meeting with us, along with her teacher, SenCo and a social worker (we don’t have a social worker). Every time my daughter was asked a question, she looked at me and became too scared to answer. The SenCo implied that I was controlling her answers and now we’re worried they think I’m telling my daughter what to say. How do I explain that I’m not, without making the situation worse?

Having to attend a meeting with multiple professionals with differing professional roles is a daunting experience for adults, let alone for a child who is aware they are the focus for the meeting. Irrespective of how the discussions were approached, your child must have been feeling so many emotions at being in an arena where her perceived ‘behaviour’ was under discussion. Meeting many adults at once is daunting for children. Meeting adults with designated school authority is daunting for children. Meeting new adults is daunting for children. Being asked to input and speak in this situation is daunting for children. For autistic children, environmental factors, emotional processing factors, language processing factors may also be relevant. It is absolutely understandable why your daughter sought safety and reassurance from yourself within the meeting.

I wonder why the meeting chair considered it necessary for your child to attend? (It may perhaps be useful to ask (in writing) why the school considered your daughter’s meeting attendance necessary given the ongoing barriers to school attendance for your daughter.) Your daughter must have felt she was in trouble for a situation beyond her control - school attendance issues for autistic children are likely borne from unmet need (the responsibility of the school provision) rather than parenting or ‘behavioural’ issues.

Your daughter’s views, wishes and feelings can be captured in alternative ways so as not to require her presence at meetings. If your daughter’s attendance at meetings is deemed necessary then there are ways to make attendance less difficult for her - by considering how many adults need to be there, or to conduct any conversations alongside an activity (walking, craft etc). Gaining your daughter’s views using methods other than verbal input may also be useful - using remote meeting attendance chat functions, letters, scrapbooks or text messaging may be more appropriate.

A good SenCo should have the requisite expertise to engage with an autistic pupil in a way that will not elicit distress. Implying that you were controlling your daughter’s answers suggests the school are viewing attendance through a safeguarding and welfare lens, rather than through an autistic-need lens. A considered response from yourself is appropriate within this situation and I would recommend you do not directly challenge the SenCo’s implication at this stage, rather use this as an indicator that the school may not be best placed to meet your daughter’s needs.

Placing a ‘subject access request’ with the school, and requesting copies of your daughter’s school file may help you to understand how they are approaching the situation overall. Is the school seeking to provide alternative education while your daughter cannot physically attend? Is the school seeking additional assessment for your daughter (educational psychology)? Is the school pursuing attendance penalties?

As a parent-carer you will be better able to consider your ‘next steps’ once you have an idea of how the school are approaching the situation.

A guide to subject access | ICO

I’ve been told by our social worker to go to the GP and get anxiety medication for myself - it’s part of our action plan. But I don’t have poor mental health, just frustration and anger that they’re not helping my son properly. What can I do?

Feelings of frustration and anger are understandable given the difficulties many families face in finding the right support for their autistic children. Worry for your child’s well-being, combined with the bureaucratic stress of navigating autism service support impacts the health and well-being of parent-carers seeking useful support. Research clearly identifies the negative impact of navigating autism support services upon the mental and physical health of care-givers.

If the action plan for your child is a voluntary one (Early Help or Child in Need, for example) it could be helpful to request some reasonable accommodations for yourself (as parent) to help lessen the situational emotional toll for you. Requesting comfort breaks within meetings, or for meetings to be conducted remotely may help combat some of the environmental stress at being party to regular (and frustrating) meetings about your child. Requesting an advocate (or support person) to attend meetings with you, may also help to mitigate against action points being made that you are not comfortable with.

If the action plan for your child is not a voluntary one (Child Protection Plan, for example), then there may be consequences for not following your designated action points. In this circumstance it is best that you speak with your GP and for your GP to confirm that you have no identified mental health needs, or your anxiety is ‘normal given the context’ and doesn’t warrant medication. I would discuss with your GP how the situation of navigating the right support and provision for your child is causing you frustration but those feelings are linked with the situation. If you have no previous documented mental health needs with your medical practice, it may be worth placing a request with your GP for a letter confirming this. It is worth noting that if your child is subject to a Child Protection Plan, there is likely a '‘digital flag’ on your GP record detailing this.

Get Help and Advice - Family Rights Group

Call for support and information | Helplines | Mind

We’ve finally received our long-awaited Ed Psych [educational psychology] report needed for the EHC Needs assessment. There are several factual inaccuracies in the report. What should we do? We don’t want to seem difficult but some inaccuracies are blatantly untrue - like, our child was still in his pyjama’s at 2pm in the afternoon. We’re worried they [the local authority] might be setting us up a bad parents to stop us moving forwards with the EHCP.

It can be deeply frustrating when important reports finally arrive and they contain things that are not quite right, or worse, comments that seemingly shift the cause for an identified need to parenting.

Human nature ensures that mistakes are sometimes made but within the context of assessing autistic need, mistakes may carry huge ramifications for the families involved.

It can be useful to separate reporting errors into two categories; factual inaccuracies that can be simply rectified and the misinterpretation (or mis-recording) of a situation or context.

Simple factual errors (wrong name, date of birth etc) are usually dealt with simply by emailing the sender of the report. The harried workloads of educational psychologists in particular mean that mistakes happen with no intention to cause upset, and in my experience are quickly amended with apologies made and there being no need to follow formal complaints procedures.

Recorded inaccuracies stemming from misunderstandings or ignorance of autistic ways-of-being are harder to correct as the inaccuracies are often based upon viewing a situation through a behavioural lens, rather than an autism-specific lens. This may sometimes mean that parents receive blame for a parenting approach. Challenging these types of inaccuracies may be more difficult as the matter becomes about challenging a professional’s expertise (even if that expertise is wrong). It is therefore very wise to consider the consequences of making that challenge for yourselves as parents.

In considering whether to challenge ‘parent blaming’ inaccuracies it is worth considering how important it is that you do so, and what counter-expertise (or evidence) you can provide in support of your challenge. For example, if the report stating your child ‘remains in their pyjama’s at 2pm’ becomes central to a refusal to offer further assessment, provision or provides the basis for referral to an inappropriate pathway (social care) then a challenge may be necessary.

Longevity of record keeping is such that even though there may be no immediate need to challenge a report’s content, an inaccurate recording may hold consequences for families much later on. But parents must also be mindful that for local authorities, complaint making may label those parents as ‘vexatious’, further minimising parent ability to advocate.

Evidence is key and so if you hold clear, counter-evidence explaining why the assessment was wrong or how the report didn’t fully appreciate the autistic context, then an earlier challenge may be best.

Right to rectification | ICO

EHC plans, EHC needs assessments and SEND Tribunal appeals

Template letters for families of children with SEND

How to Complain - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Should we take our daughter out of mainstream school and home educate her before they think about issuing fines, or start blaming us? She doesn’t like school and cries every morning before going in.

Anxiety at having to attend school is very common for autistic children, and it is a credit to your parenting that you have recognised your daughter is struggling with the thought of going to school.

It may be that your daughter is finding the transition into school difficult and there are aspects to school-life that she does enjoy. It may be worth exploring if there are any parts of the school day that she does enjoy or look forward to. Similarly, it may also be worth exploring which aspects of the school day your daughter dislikes.

School’s have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for your child and common adjustments could be:

• offering staggered entry and exit times to avoid crowds

• offering separate entrances and exits to avoid crowds

• offering an in-school safe space to have decompression time

• offering uniform adjustments

• offering a trusted member of staff to support transitions and / or offer emotional support.

However, you are right to recognise your daughter’s distress at having to attend school and if this is persistent and intense, then your daughter should not be forced into the school environment as this will undoubtedly make matters worse.

A good school should work with you as parents to establish if there are any adjustments that may help your daughter while also recognising that sometimes a school environment is just not suitable for autistic young people. Rather than threaten to issue attendance fines, a school should be considering:

• marking non-attendance as authorised or as medical need

• exploring alternative options for education, such as off-site or at-home tuition

• making referrals for specialist assessments, such as occupational therapy, educational psychology or for an EHC Needs assessment (Educational and Health Care Plan).

Parents know their child best and it may be better in some circumstances to de-register from a school to prevent unnecessary distress building up for a child, rather than wait out lengthy referral times etc. However, elective home education is costly and life-altering for families and there is a duty for local authorities to provide education that is right for a child’s needs and abilities. Attempting to work with authorities in sourcing the best education setting for your daughter is not easy, but may offer more options over the longer term and this may include options such as ‘elective home education’ (where families fund education) or ‘education other than in school’ (where local authorities fund alternative provision, such as home or online tuition).

Education otherwise than in a school (EOTIS) | (IPSEA) Independent Provider of Special Education Advice

How do you cope with gossip being spread by other parents?

Unfortunately, this is an all-to-common aspect of raising autistic children - there are far too many parents quick to judge from afar without holding any knowledge or experience of their own. They can have the loudest voices, make the meanest comments and this behaviour can cause real distress. It can become especially difficult to deal with when it becomes a regular occurrence, perhaps within the school community or in and among neighbourhoods.

From an individual perspective, try to ignore the behaviour as far as possible and try not to engage with comments or gossip. Maintain your focus upon your child and gain support and strength from local or online parent-support autism networks.

If this type of behaviour is happening within the school environment (at school collection time or during wider school-community events) then I feel the school have a responsibility to ensure their environment is a psychologically safe-space for all. Gossip not only affects parents but it impacts child-to-child relationships and creates space for bullying behaviour. Gossip is often used as a tool by adults to exclude and ostracise other adults, and this filters down to the connected children also. If gossip is affecting your life in this way, then a conversation with a trusted teacher (or school lead) may be useful. If the school has a culture of gossip, whereby parents and teachers are exchanging gossip regularly for example, then this is an issue the school governing team may need to know about.

If gossip becomes persistent and involves behaviours you find harassing (name calling, social media targeting, vexatious reports), and this is linked to your family’s neurodivergence, then it may be worth considering reporting this behaviour as anti-social or as harassment. Keeping a diary of incidents and collating evidence is useful for this reason.

Disability Hate Crime - Stop Hate UK

Information and advice about all forms of bullying

THANK YOU!

I want to take this opportunity to say a big, cheesy, thank you to you all. For reading. For subscribing. For supporting my work in challenging narratives of blame. Thank you to the parent-carers who have shared their experiences of blame with me - both for this newsletter and for inclusion within ‘We Need To Talk About Autism and Parent-Carer Blame’. I am a firm believer in the ‘voices of many create change’!

And … for those readers who may not know, I am now able to offer parent-carer support consultations alongside consultation services for organisations. For further information visit:

About Alice Running | AliceRunning

Or contact me at alicerunningadvocacy@gmail.com

Best wishes as always,

Alice X

‘We Need To Talk About Autism and Parent-Carer Blame’ is now available:

Independent Bookshops Online

Waterstones

Amazon

Jessica Kingsley Publishers - For 20% off, purchase via Jessica Kingsley Publishers using code %RUNNING20.

Subscribe now

Share

www.alicerunningautismadvocacy.com

Thank you for your interest and support in my work.

I am Alice Running - a neuroaffirming writer and author with particular expertise and understanding in the use of parent-carer blame within autism service provision.

My second book - We Need to Talk About Autism and Parent-Carer Blame - will be published on March 19th, 2026:

We Need to Talk About Autism and Parent-Carer Blame by Alice Running | Waterstones

You can find out more about my work, here:

About Alice Running | AliceRunning

I produce bi-monthly newsletters to share different aspects of my work relating to challenging the use parent-carer blame.

In this month’s newsletter, I am focusing upon how ‘blaming the other sibling’ narratives appear in autism service provision:

How are siblings used in blaming narratives?

An interesting aspect to how service professionals view our autistic families is how the sibling(s) of the child in focus are perceived or positioned, in relation to the child in focus. By ‘child in focus’ I mean the child who is under assessment by a particular autism-related service; this may be a clinical assessment, school assessment or any other assessment.

Many services and assessments take consideration of a whole family dynamic as part of their assessment, with the rationale being to ensure any presenting way-of-being is fully understood. In some circumstances this can perhaps be useful; clinical screening services for autism may seek to understand a family’s wider propensity for neurodivergence. Taking a sibling-wide approach may also be useful in multi-autistic households where interactions between siblings impact each individual child’s sensory profile (icks and glimmers), and as parents it is useful to know that while one child needs a certain activity to ground themselves, this same activity may trigger distress for the other.

However, there are situations whereby siblings are wrongly identified by people outside of the family as the cause of an autistic child’s way-of-being.

Within my work I am aware of families where their autistic child’s autistic-ness is blamed upon a sibling:

‘Your child is not autistic, they are copying their brother.’

‘Your child is not autistic, they are acting up for attention because your focus is on your other daughter.’

Parent-carers recall how often, these blaming narratives occur at the start of their journey to either understand their child or seek better service support for them. The function of these narratives (wittingly or unwittingly) is to ‘shut-down’ early requests for support. The observing professional is often focused upon perceived behaviour, rather than understanding the autistic-experience relating to an environment or situation. The impact of seeking to label a child and family dynamic in this way is profound. Practically, barriers are immediately placed between the support the child requires and a family’s ability to advocate successfully for this support - and it is the child who suffers as a result. But more than this, these narratives imply that your autistic child is behaving in an undesirable way; their needs are minimised. With this, there is the potential for an autistic child to internalise a view of themselves as being naughty or not worthy of having their needs met.

Interestingly, ‘blaming the other sibling’ narratives occur in families irrespective of whether the other siblings are autistic or not. Nor does it seem to matter if the other sibling is performing to the desired expectations set by school and the non-autistic people who set these expectations.

I hear many stories of how older or younger siblings are interchangeably blamed for the presenting needs of an autistic child. Of parents being told that their child isn’t autistic, their child is simply adjusting to a newborn baby. Or an elder sibling who is undertaking exams - ‘the anxiety is just rubbing off, that’s all’.

I was simultaneously told that my youngest was ‘just copying his older brother’ and that my youngest was in ‘dire need of my attention’ because his older brother ‘took so much of my time’. Quickly constructed judgements often fail to fully comprehend the entirety of a family situation. For me, it was my youngest child who required greater parental attention, and if anything, that impact was greatest upon the ‘blamed sibling’. Similarly, my eldest child maintained academic engagement and impeccable in-school ‘behaviour’ throughout the period where he was identified as the ‘cause’ for my youngest not being able to access school.

There is of course, a difference between a service professional passing a ‘one-off’ comment relating to sibling dynamics (which may be an attempt to offer empathy and recognition that a parent holds multiple responsibilities) and the repeated use of ‘sibling blame’ within a process of seeking support. When professional opinion around sibling dynamics are recorded (whether as part of an assessment or not) I feel the support focus can shift from where it is most needed. Early stage, multi-professional planning may, for example, focus upon strategies to manage that perceived sibling dynamic, diverting the focus away from the most important need, to foster greater inclusion and understanding of autistic need.

Focusing primarily upon sibling dynamics within early intervention-type settings may be counterproductive to resolving the identified issues. A first stage intervention for an autistic child who has begun to avoid school, for example, should focus upon which aspects of the school day and environment are causing distress or anxiety and then steps should be taken to adjust the environment etc. However, when professional focus has instead shifted onto perceived sibling ‘behaviour’, intervention may instead focus upon how a family manages the ‘school run’ - ‘Mum should seek extended family support to enable the children to be taken to school separately, thus avoiding any learned behaviours’.

Offering the wrong intervention or support only perpetuates difficulties for a family, who are often caught in a situation where they must demonstrate failure of an intervention before being able to advocate for a more appropriate one. This in turn causes delay to the implementation of effective support, creating unnecessary distress for the whole family unit.

My advocacy and consultation work can help identify where unnecessary interventions are being recommended or employed by service professionals and can help shift the focus back onto the needs of the autistic child or young person, delivering quicker responses to autistic distress.

For Parent-Carers | AliceRunning

Consultancy Services | AliceRunning

‘ASK ALICE’ - We Need to Talk About Autism and Parent-Carer Blame: BOOK LAUNCH newsletter special.

In March 2026, I will be publishing a special edition of this newsletter where I will offer problem-solving strategies and advice to your parent-blaming dilemmas! If there is an aspect of your life, situation or interactions with professionals where you (as parent-carers of autistic people) are experiencing blame, put it in writing to me at alicerunningadvocacy@gmail.com. All published questions and responses will be presented with respect and anonymity.

Similarly, if you are a professional who works with autistic families and wishes to seek some advice around building trusting relationships - ask away!

Until March,

Best wishes,

Alice X

www.alicerunningautismadvocacy.com

Share

Subscribe now

I am Alice Running and I have been writing about the difficulties of navigating autism-related support services since 2019. I began writing personal blogs about my own experiences of interacting with services, the lack of effective support available and how bureaucracy frustrated and obstructed pathways of support. I quickly began to understand that the issues I was facing were also the same issues for many other autistic families and that the issues were systemic within service provision. Subsequently, I have gone on to author books, conduct research, present peer-reviewed journal articles and chapter contributions, and write for mainstream outlets. I am currently working with the PDA Society in creating a parent-led project for long-term impact in reducing parent-carer blame.

Parent-carer blame creates tangible harm for affected families, often resulting in autistic children and young people not receiving their rightful access to services or support. I hope that in producing these newsletters, not only do the families affected by parent-carer blame feel supported, but that my professional subscribers find useful content to help shift established service cultures away from blaming parents and autistic people.

The complexity of parent-carer blame and drawing parallels:

The more I study, consider and write about parent-carer blame (as a phenomena), the more multi-faceted and complex the aspects of blame become.

The term ‘parent-carer blame’ consists of so many parts; the qualitative experience of being blamed and the harm that it does, and the reasons for why it occurs (unconscious bias, motivated bias, racism, othering, ableism, structural benefits, political positioning). And it does not occur in just one sphere but is present within so many public and personal spaces; schools, communities, families, health systems, SEND services and more.

From macro to micro spaces, parent-carer blame and blame towards neurodivergent people is persistent. Once you begin to notice how blame appears, it is difficult not to recognise these patterns again and again.

When I read the heartbreaking testimonies detailing the removal of children from Greenlandic parents based on biased and culturally inappropriate parenting assessments, I noticed similarities with the treatment of autistic families:

The parenting assessments Greenlandic parents are subjected to are “designed around Danish cultural norms and ... are administered in Danish ... this can lead to to misunderstandings.”

“Greenlandic parents in Denmark are 5.6 times more likely to have children taken into care than Danish parents...”

Without wanting to detract from these specific and crucial recounts, I can’t help but draw some parallels with the ways in which autistic children are removed from autistic families. Generic parenting and social care assessments are designed to assess non-autistic families and ways-of-being and may conflate normal autistic lifestyle with markers of safeguarding concern.

But understanding parent-carer blame is not just the recognition of professional / service ignorance or misunderstandings of autistic life, we must also understand how systems (the education system / the healthcare system / local governance / national government policy and law) are built to protect their internal decision-making-processes at the expense of our (autistic people and their families) access to rightful support.

Another BBC investigation highlighted the tactics of blame appropriated by adoption-linked services and social care practitioners:

‘Parents threatened and blamed by authorities as 1000 adopted children returned to care.’

Again, not to detract from the children and families’ at the centre of this investigation, the similarities in terms of bad social work practice are too close to leave unmentioned - for example, local authorities providing no help when families reach out for support / families being threatened with prosecution when reaching out in times of distress and desperation / issues being minimised by social workers ...

My own research into parental blame and autism has found many instances of parents reporting tactics such as above to silence parents requesting support for their autistic children. Some parents speak about how social work reports pertaining to their children contain fictitious elements and how they are threatened with safeguarding processes or child removal by involved social workers. I have presented several further case-studies in my forthcoming book which highlight how systems appropriate tactics to deny autistic children access to their basic rights (such as education and healthcare).

I think it is becoming more important to broadly consider how (state or service) systems oppress minority peoples and how the harm caused to autistic people and their families (Systems Generated Trauma) is not always unintentional but is also intentional, and that services are designed to protect their own internal systems.

When I refer to ‘services protecting their own internal processes’ I am referring to the strategies employed by services when a challenge is made to their service, such as a complaint or a pertinent question or a legal process. Parent-carers report professionals ‘closing ranks’ at this juncture, or questions being ignored, or being flooded with administrative tasks or legal threats to counteract the valid, initial approach.

I have experienced tactics such as this too often in my own life.

This is MOTIVATED BIAS and is a conscious bias affecting outcomes for autistic people:

When a decision or an outcome (related to an autistic person’s assessment, support or referral pathway) is influenced by the underlying and conscious motives of a service or professional.

How does motivated bias present itself within autism service provision?

* When hierarchical structures exert pressure from the top, for outcomes or referrals to meet internal policy or ideology. For example, only referring to treatment based pathways to ‘fix’ autistic people.

* When funding constraints decide who needs the referral, OR when an outsourced professional or service supports the funders' position because they want future re-hiring.

* When professional collusion excludes the autistic person or their family. For example, when an original (wrong) decision or opinion is supported by other services or service professionals (to avoid accountability).

Motivated bias protects the funding pools and entrenched ways of doing things. It protects the ‘status quo’, making it harder for autistic advocacy to breakthrough.

Understanding how systems work is the first step to challenging bias and advocating effectively.

Support:

I am producing a range of tools to support parent-carers in counteracting aspects of parent-carer blame when interacting with autistic support services:

Resources and Training | AliceRunning

I am also ‘taking the conversation’ to those services who need to change their practice by connecting with professional allies:

The Portal Podcast: Linking Research and Practice for Social Work – Apple Podcasts

Understanding PDA: A Parent’s Perspective - a conversation between Jannice Jones and Alice Running - The NEURODIVERGENT Podcast | Podcast on Spotify

And finally! My forthcoming book - We Need to Talk About Autism and Parent-Carer Blame - is now in production and will be available March 19th 2026:

“Parents of autistic children are often subject to scrutiny of their parenting strategies. At best this can be exhausting and intrusive; at worst it can lead to formal accusations of harm. The consequence is a society where autistic families are unable to access the correct services for their children, increasing risk of family burnout and breakdown.

Based on the author’s lived experience, this book looks at the different ways blame can manifest and how parents can manage these moments. It identifies when and why professionals may incorrectly raise safeguarding concerns without understanding the context of neurodivergence and how professional practice can be improved.”

Best wishes as always and thank you for reading,

Alice X

www.alicerunningautismadvocacy.com

Subscribe now

Share

Share Alice Running

The ‘SEND’ system stole my children’s childhoods. This is how I feel.

As my youngest child approaches adulthood, my overriding feelings are of anger and bitterness towards a local authority who took so much family time from us. Yes, it could have been much worse - we were never separated, only threats alluding to that were made.

I am angry about the hours stolen from family time by meetings and paperwork and phone calls. And the joy removed from hours of playtime through chronic and sometimes debilitating stress.

Joy should not be removed from a childhood, but this is how I look back over the years spent raising my children. Joy repeatedly removed and replaced with bureaucratic overwhelm and burden.

I am angry about the family holidays we couldn’t take, the trips we couldn’t make, our friends we could no longer invite to our home. The poverty created because navigating the SEND system became a job. The family savings ripped through for legal fees and independent assessments. And most importantly, the painful distress and trauma caused to my child by unhelpful interventions.

We aim to create a childhood for our children which is carefree; few responsibilities, few worries - a time to experience joy and to explore the world. These things are not out of reach because a person is autistic but they are placed out of reach by a system where families are forced to fight for the bare essentials of education and health care.

The ‘try this first’ approach did nothing other than accumulate distress for our family. Our hard won ‘at home’ education package (EOTAS) was the right way to meet need but came seven years too late. The right package at the right time may have prevented years of distress and accumulated trauma for my child.

For each professional that entered our home with the wrong approach for ‘engagement’, panic was created, fear instilled - shutdown and retreat became embedded. My child had resilience to recover from one or two of these incidents. But week after week, year after year of bad autism practice gave him no space to exist. He was trapped and scared in his own home.

Cornered and fearful, my child’s language became ‘fight’, protecting himself from interventions which were harming his inner being. This communication was forcefully met, sometimes with physical restraint, sometimes with chemical restraint and sometimes with such brute force I am still unable to write about it.

I have a video stored. A video my other child made. An emergency service response to a rational episode of autistic distress. I want to talk about it; I want to release it to the press. But I’m afraid to. Grown men treat my baby like a dangerous animal.

I have spent a decade navigating our nation’s SEND system and over that timescale I would have hoped for positive change. Stories such as mine intermittently break through into mainstream consciousness only to be forgotten about days later. Consultations are launched, families are given tokenistic space to be heard, political conversations are had. To what end? On paper, parent-carer voices are given due space, but it seems to me that we are still shouting into a void - our expertise and experience are so often rejected and most definitely not acted upon.

I admire those families who have the tenacity and foresight to home-educate from the beginning, or the resources to side-step the debt-ridden local authority purse. It may be the only way to avoid such systemic family trauma. But it is by no means equitable - for the children of families who have no access to independent resources have no option other than to ‘run the gauntlet’ of local authority provision.

As we move through into the next decade, I fear autistic families are just pawns in an ever-increasingly hostile reduction in equal access to provision. An ugly game of political chess where the loss is felt greatest by our children.

www.alicerunningautismadvocacy.com

Share

Share Alice Running

Here are my TEN (perhaps controversial) ‘take-aways’ from ten years of navigating systems of autism support:

1: A child burnt out from mainstream schooling needs adequate rest and recuperation.

And not just a few days, or reduced hours, or work sent home - a period of time for complete decompression. This may go against common re-integration approaches but autistic burnout will not magically disappear by pressure to re-attend as soon as possible.

2: ‘Progress’ and ‘engagement’ will mean differing things for parents, children and professionals.

Most SEN processes view progress in non-autistic terms, wanting autistic children to largely follow established ideals of target setting. Targets that seek to mould an autistic child to fit normative ways of being will largely fail, either in the short term or by causing longer term, internal harm. Rather, it is better to meet a child where they are at and embrace their individuality. If a child ‘cannot sit still’ in an classroom then a target should not be to ‘sit with a teaching assistant for ten minutes at the beginning of each lesson to practice calming techniques’, the child should have space to run around.

3: School staff are not always the best source of information for ‘autism’ screening tools.

Without significant autistic expertise, school staff are mostly unlikely to be able to pick apart the nuances of differing autistic responses. Children who mask, are meeting their academic goals, have friends, make eye-contact etc etc are likely to fall under the radar of a teacher with thirty plus other children to be responsible for.

4: Much time is wasted working up through the tiers of support or trialing first-stage responses such as in-school counselling.

I know that local authorities want to evidence how first-stage support has not been successful in order to justify funding further assessments or provision but for many autistic families this approach hinders not helps. With each failed support, more burnout or distress or energy is consumed; trust is eroded and the impact is felt by the child.

5: People with the most useful and affirming autism expertise are likely those people with accrued, lived experience.

These people will cut across professional roles and hierarchies and they are key for positive and sustainable autistic well-being and support. There may be times when only the autistic child has the requisite expertise about themselves - this is why giving close attention to all types of communication (including distressed and shutdown) is necessary.

6: Maintaining a parental chronology of support requested is crucial.

When a succession of professionally dispensed support strategies have ‘failed’ and / or professionals around your family begin to meet regularly ‘behind closed doors’ for ‘professional only’ meetings, having a prepared chronology of instances help has been requested may help mitigate against parental blame being used.

7: Services may employ DARVO techniques (Defend, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) when faced with official complaints or legal challenges relating to system failure.

When this happens, and many autistic families speak of experiencing this, it is hard to hold onto personal truth. Recognising this experience as somewhat common and part of a chronically underfunded and overly bureaucratic system can help maintain parental sanity.

8: Professionals who behave as if they are your friend may not always be your friend.

Indeed, they may be the professional seeking to ‘elicit’ a deeper connection only to support a pre-designed agenda. Maintaining a civil, professional and ‘at-distance’ relationship with involved professionals protects private information from misappropriation.

9: Autistic mental health and well-being is greatly impacted by a physical environment and by other people’s thoughts around autism.

Attempting to create better autistic well-being or mental health without considering the sensory impact of an intervention may create more harm than help. Similarly, a non-affirming intervention that seeks to assimilate autistic ways-of-being into neuronormative life, may also create more harm than help.

10: When a system is chronically underfunded and families struggle to access pathways of good support, desperation kicks in.

It is normal and rational to seek alternative routes to autism assessment and / or support when local authorities and the NHS are financially struggling, but it can be impossible to know where to spend any available money - which independent avenues are appropriate, safe and useful? When in a desperate situation it is hard to consider these aspects of sourcing independent assessment and provision and there are some independent services who will seek to exploit this. A good independent professional will say when they think their service is not appropriate for a family’s needs. Considering strategy is an often neglected important prerequisite to obtaining independent services - take the time to consider which assessment or task is to be prioritised.

As we move through the next decade, political conversations around ‘autism’ and disability look likely to shape how provision for autistic people and their families is offered.

It seems to me that whatever the future has in hold for autism and SEN provision, maintaining key notions of respect, autonomy and care for our autistic children is the only way to enable good well being for the next generation of autistic people.

If you’d like to learn more about me and my work, visit my website or Facebook page.

I hope you’ve found this post interesting :)

Alice X

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

In recognition of a decade worth of time, tears and mostly heartbreak from navigating autism support services, I have written a three-part blog series:

1. Being under the ‘SEN’ spotlight. How does this impact our autistic children.

2. TEN controversial ‘take-aways’ from TEN years of navigating systems of autism support.

3. The true cost of the ‘autism crisis’ is a lost childhood.

Sharing my personal reflections ensure that my children’s childhoods have not been ‘lost’. For parent-carers, these reflections may deeply resonate; for professionals, I hope they provide much opportunity for reflection …

Being under the ‘SEN’ spotlight. How does this impact our autistic children.

As a parent, do you ever worry about the impact of ‘SEN’ assessment narratives on your child? Do we ever truly consider how ‘SEN’ assessment processes - with endless meetings, phone calls, clinical visits - are experienced by our autistic children?

Children are astute, and autistic children even more so (in my experience). Children overhear our conversations, pick up on important meetings - they know we are talking about them and that really can’t feel nice. With the very best intentions, and as good parents, attempting to translate adult conversations and concerns about them into safe and positive language isn’t always effective. For my children, any attempt to do so created more anxiety or even outrage.

Feeling outrage at being the subject of professional attention is an emotion I empathise strongly with. While parents and their parenting is scrutinised under the ‘SEN’ assessment lens, children are at the very centre of professional focus. For so many adult conversations to be all about you must be an overwhelming and daunting experience for a child. When your autistic mind is utterly normal, rational and in no need of fixing - because the ‘problem’ is that the school is too loud, or the bullies are too mean, or people speak too quickly, or the inside of your head is just more entertaining than what anyone else has to offer - outrage is a perfectly appropriate response to hold.

Being ‘under the spotlight’ is an intense experience for any person, for our children it must be verging on intolerable. Much of my own autistic experience is around needing to hide - I don’t want to be perceived, I don’t want other people to form opinions of me. Other autistic people vocalise this aspect of existing too, and so it follows that for some autistic children being perceived may be a painful experience. Imagine being subjected to assessments and conversations about the inside of your mind and how you interact with the world, when being perceived causes tangible discomfort.

I worry about this as a parent. I worry I have been complicit in harming my children by exposing them to the ‘fixing’ narratives of mental health and school attendance. I reassure myself that I had little choice; I had to ‘prove’ I was not emotionally harming my children and that they were autistic. But to do so I had to enter the world of clinical autism - assessments and action plans and talking jargon in meetings. The professional jargon around ‘Special Educational Needs’ (SEN) and autism is painful for me. ‘Behaviour’ is an awful term, placing any perceived problem within a child and not the system. ‘Complex’ as a term makes my skin crawl; autistic children aren’t complex, instead, those seeking to understand them are ignorant. For me, having to adapt my language to fit the language of ‘SEN’ felt disloyal to my children - imagine overhearing your safe person, your whole world, describe you in terms of difficult behaviour. My heart breaks. I can recall this experience from my own childhood - being discussed by the medical profession because my ‘behaviour’ was ‘perplexing’ for them. To be direct, it makes you feel like shit.

When my parenting was fully under the professional spotlight, my legal team advised me to ‘tell them exactly how it is’. I still hold an enormous amount of respect for this person, they could see the bigger picture and were attempting to manoeuvre legal arguments away from mother-blame. However, I just could not do it. Why should distressed, emotional yet understandable response mechanisms be reduced to ‘behaviour’ and forever immortalised in local authority records. Imagine requesting your ‘SEN’ records as an adult and reading how strangers described you.

This leaves me to consider how autistic ‘demand avoidance’ (and I’m not referring to a PDA profile here) may be (in part) a self-protection technique to resist against ‘SEN’ systems which are so focused upon analysing deficit, difficulty and difference. By resisting engagement with these processes, perhaps an autistic child is astutely protecting their core-being from harm, because they instinctively know they are normal for them and the world just needs to catch up?

As always, thank you for reading X

To find out more about my work or to access my ‘instant access’ advocacy support tools, visit www.alicerunningautismadvocacy.com.

Best wishes,

Alice X

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

For those new readers, I am Alice Running and I produce bi-monthly newsletters with the purpose of disseminating information that challenges the use of parent-carer blame within autism (and related) service provision.

Parent-carer blame creates tangible harm for affected families, often resulting in autistic children and young people not receiving their rightful access to services or support. I hope that in producing these newsletters, not only do the families affected by parent-carer blame feel supported, but that my professional subscribers find useful content to help shift established service cultures away from blaming parents …

Alice Running Roundup:

1. My paper - Dangerous Disclosure: An Autoethnographic Account of My Autism Diagnosis and the Social Work Profession - has now been published in Ought: Journal of Autistic Culture.

Available to read here: "Dangerous Disclosure: An Autoethnographic Account of My Autism Diagnosis" by Alice Running

ABSTRACT: The disclosing of an autism diagnosis presents particular challenge for autistic mothers, especially for those autistic mothers who are additionally advocating for their autistic children within public service provision. Research into autism and parental blame demonstrates how autistic mothers are disproportionately exposed to aspects of mother-blame.

Disclosure of an autism diagnosis for autistic mothers can therefore be understood as a complex decision-making process whereby managing autistic identity and understanding autistic self are impacted by the additional need to manage the perceptions of others and associated stigma. The decision-making process is further influenced by the tangible consequences of mother-blame (child removal) which raises questions around how much autonomy and free will autistic mothers hold with regards to exercising choice in diagnostic disclosure.

This paper presents the experiences of one autistic mother (the author), examining her disclosure to children’s social work practitioners and the subsequent social work consideration of parenting capability.

Running, A. (2025). Dangerous Disclosure: An Autoethnographic Account of My Autism Diagnosis and the Social Work Profession. Ought: The Journal of Autistic Culture, 6(2), 11.

2. My forthcoming book is now in press! There is an agreed title and it is now available for pre-order:

‘We Need to Talk About Autism and Parent-Carer Blame: A resource for parent-carers of autistic young people and associated professionals’

Pre-order: at AMAZON, at WATERSTONES, or to support independent bookstores - BOOKSHOP.

Parent-Carer Blame *New Releases*:

1. Professor Luke Clements and Dr Anna Aiello (Eds): Understanding Parent Blame. Institutional Failure and Complex Trauma.

This book brings together academic analysis relating to allegations of FII (Fabricated and / or Induced Illness), institutional parent-carer blame and the trauma caused by such, with parent-carer testimony.

I’m particularly looking forward to reading the chapter relating to autistic parents - ‘Child protection and the experiences of autistic parents accused of fabricated or induced illness – Cathleen Long, Rachel Gavin and Esther Whitney’.

Policy Press | Understanding Parent Blame - Institutional Failure and Complex Trauma, Edited by Luke Clements and Ana Laura Aiello

2. Professor Andy Bilson: Trends in Parent Carer Blame: Patterns of service for children with a disability or mental illness referred to children’s social care.

Journal article awaiting publication. A pre-print version is available:

SocArXiv Papers | Trends in Parent Carer Blame: Patterns of service for children with a disability or mental illness referred to children’s social care.

The paper considers data obtained from the Children in Need census (2025 - 2023), identifying an increase of 145% in the use of S47 safeguarding investigations for families of disabled children. Bilson considers this increase to “echo concerns” from families of disabled children that children’s services assess through the lens of risk, rather than support. Concluding, Bilson points to the damaging impact investigative safeguarding assessment can have upon families of disabled children seeking support.

Focus on Fabricated Induced Illness (FII):

Parenting autistic children and young people, and being an autistic parent, are factors linked with susceptibility to allegations of FII from children’s professionals. Challenging the appropriateness of raising FII concerns is therefore helpful for autistic families:

1. Bilson, A., & Talia, A. (2025). Fabricated or induced illness in England: Examining mortality and serious harm. The British Journal of Social Work: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcaf089

In this paper, authors present data identifying ZERO child deaths relating to FII within a twelve year period. Authors note that where their study found harm caused and in relation to allegations of FII, better outcomes for children were more likely to be achieved through the strengthening of medical practice (rather than pursuing parents).

2. Fabricated or Induced Illness: Finding a Fair Way forward. A St George’s House Consultation.

In March 2025 a consultation was held to discuss current concerns relating to the use of FII allegations. The subsequent published report notes:

• Current Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) guidance for FII does not have a firm evidence base,

• RCPCH guidance for FII has triggered a “moral panic” among safeguarding professionals, resulting in an overuse of allegations made,

• Current RCPCH guidance for FII disproportionately affects mothers, particularly autistic mothers or those with neurodivergent children,

• There is a lack of accountability when erroneous allegations are made by professionals, yet the permanency of safeguarding records persist for families,

• Real cases of FII are rare, yet wrongful allegations are common,

• A culture shift within health and social care services is needed to counter erroneous allegations,

• Great harm is being caused to those families accused of FII,

• The report provides a useful legal discussion around the use of FII, particularly in relation to Human Rights Law (1998).

The report can be accessed here - FII-Final-Report.pdf

Signposting:

1. This service may be of interest for autistic people and / or their families - an intermediary service to support communication differences within UK court proceedings (including family court). An intermediary is assigned to assist a person in being able to follow proceedings and to make informed decisions. Services are accessed through referrals from a legal representative.

Family proceedings - Communicourt

2. I have collated a selection of free-to-access self-advocacy tools for autistic people - available via:

Free Resources | AliceRunning

As always, many thanks for reading :)

Alice X

www.alicerunningautismadvocacy.com

alicerunningadvocacy@gmail.com

Subscribe now

Share Alice Running

For new subscribers: my newsletter is a free, bi-monthly space where I share information useful for challenging blame (towards autistic people and their families) within autism-related service provision. I also share updates relating to my own work output.

Trauma and Parent-Carer Blame

At the beginning of May I delivered a presentation for the PDA Space (2025 conference) around trauma and parent-carer blame - focusing on my own experiences, linking this with academic research and suggesting ways to fight against internalising parent-carer blame. The presentation can still be accessed (payment required) via the PDA Space website.

The academic research I referred to during my presentation is below:

1. Baker, P., Cooper, V., Tsang, W., Garnett, I., & Blackman, N. (2021). A survey of complex trauma in families who have children and adults who have a learning disability and/or autism. Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities, 15(5), 222-239.

This study surveyed families involved with accessing SEN-related services, finding that 10% of participants exhibited indicators of CPTSD, with families reporting that systems of support create additional trauma.

2. Yakeley, M., Bonger, N., & Villierezz, P. Difficult parent or traumatised parent?.

This article is written for professionals and discusses how traumatised parents can be labelled as ‘difficult’. The article states how parents navigating SEND services have a greater risk of poor mental health and that navigating services leads to an ongoing pattern of accumulated trauma. Authors conclude that guidelines for the treatment of PTSD are not applicable due to the ongoing nature of acquired trauma (ie, navigating services constantly re-traumatises parents).

3. Rabba, A. S., Smith, J., Hall, G., Alexander, V., Batty, K., Datta, P., ... & Pellicano, E. (2025). ‘I’m sick of being the problem’: Autistic mothers’ experiences of interacting with schools for their autistic children. Autism, 29(4), 1034-1046.

This research provides rich detail and gives space to the voices of autistic mothers and their experiences of trauma while navigating provision for their children.

Parent-Carer Blame and E/PDA Autistic children.

I may be a little ‘late to the party’ with sharing this research:

Nawaz, S., & Speer, S. (2025). What are the experiences and support needs of families of autistic children with Extreme (or ‘Pathological’) Demand Avoidance (E/PDA) behaviours?. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 119, 102515.

This research centres on families with autistic children who have a ‘demand avoidant’ profile, looking at their interactions with service provision. Authors point to how their support needs are not well understood by professionals who use a label-based, ‘typical-autism’ framework.

One of the key themes identified within this research is:

“Judgements that parents are to blame for E/PDA behaviours - Allegations of Fabricated or Induced Illness (FII)”

Authors write: “Parents’ reports suggest that where understanding and acceptance of E/PDA behaviours is lacking, parent blaming (typically of the mother) flourishes. In extreme, but not uncommon cases, parents stated that they were accused of FII, which irrevocably destroyed their trust in professionals and undermined their efforts to safeguard the wellbeing of the whole family.” (p.10)

Reducing parent-carer blame by amending (UK) Children’s Act legislation:

Dr Aiello and Professor Clements continue to advocate for changes to current (UK) Children’s Act law, specifically the need for amendments to better address the needs of disabled children and their families. Read their latest statement below:

Putting the record straight - Cerebra

To briefly summarise: parents, disabled charities etc have expressed significant concern at how approaches to social care for disabled support services may be assessed via a safeguarding lens, leading to the blaming of parents and unnecessary use of child protection procedures.

The Law Commission held a consultation, concluding that “the Children Act 1989 should be amended to better address the needs of disabled children and their families.[2] In particular – its proposal to ‘take disabled children out of the Children Act and devise a new system for them”.

Dr Aiello and Prof. Clements respond to comments made regarding Law Commission proposals.

Using ‘double empathy theory’ to challenge parent-carer blame within autism provision:

I am very proud and excited to share that I have written a chapter inclusion for Damian Milton’s forthcoming Double Empathy Reader (May 2025).

My chapter is titled, Double Empathy and Professional Scrutiny of Autistic Families and is a personal exploration of how a lack of shared understanding between myself (as an autistic mother) and social care professionals contributed to the blaming of me for my children’s normal and rational autistic responses and communication.

I am hopeful that this text will be useful and informative for practitioners working with autistic people. Details below:

The Double Empathy Reader - Pavilion Publishing

The Double Empathy Reader: Exploring Theory, Neurodivergent Lived Experience and Implications for Practice: Amazon.co.uk: Damian Milton: 9781803882956: Books

“The Double Empathy Reader brings together a substantial collection of work from leading researchers, theorists and practitioners, with first-hand accounts of neurodivergent people, to explore this growing area of study within the neurodiversity movement.

This comprehensive handbook explores Damian Milton’s ‘double empathy problem’. It challenges the traditional view that in exchanges between autistic and non-autistic people, this breakdown was simply the result of autistic people being inherently deficient in empathy. The Double Empathy Reader brings together an important volume of work to explore the research that has developed in that time as well as the many gaps in our understanding that still exist, with the aim to understand the potential of this theory to aid a reframing of autism itself and the radical change this could bring when considering best practice models for supporting autistic people in different settings.”

Many thanks for reading,

Alice X

www.alicerunningautismadvocacy.com

alicerunningadvocacy@gmail.com

Subscribe now

Share

Share Alice Running

I’m aware that many neurodivergent people and their families are increasingly worried by US and UK politics; how neurodivergent and autistic people are being spoken about and legislated for is causing concern for many. Lately, it has felt as if we have taken a step backwards in terms of accepting autistic people as equally valuable and valued human beings. Much political debate is framing the input we require for equity with non-autistic people, as economically burdensome.

I enjoyed listening to the Autistic Culture podcast - ‘Make America Neurotypical Again’.

Listen here: Make America Neurotypical Again (Episode 110)

And in the UK, if you are concerned about proposed changes to PIP eligibility, here are some useful resources:

Fightback - a service which can provide help for PIP claimants. They produce accurate information relating to proposed changes and are also collating responses to the proposals from disabled people.

Viv Dawes Autistic Advocate - here is a link to a passionate blog post written by Viv about WHY autistic people need access to PIP. Viv covers the many ways in which society makes it harder for autistic people to thrive. Viv is also doing a fantastic job with posting timely updates and links relating to PIP proposals.

Scope - an open letter to UK Government asking for reconsideration of proposals and signed by leading disability rights charities. There is an option to add your own name in support.

Cerebra - A response to Government proposals.

Disabled People Against Cuts - For grassroots activism against disability related welfare cuts.

Neurodivergent Labour - Affiliated with the Labour Party and taking an active stand against the government’s PIP proposals.

Parent-carer blame, autism and the (UK) Family Court

This is a first attempt to collate research, experience and information about autistic experiences within the family court system - please do not view this as comprehensive, my intentions are to group together some of the key pieces of information I have relating to the family courts, as I am aware there are many parents who (through no fault of their own) become involved with Family Court processes.

The Family Court presides over matters relating to child safeguarding (supervision orders, child removal) and private family arrangements such as child ‘custody’ (alongside other matters such as domestic violence, and where a child should be educated should parents be in dispute).

There are many ways in which autistic parents and parents of autistic children can be impacted by family court processes and decision making. Decision making within the family court is ultimately held by the presiding Judge, but the Judge is informed by related professionals. Key professionals given remit to make assessments (upon parents, children and the situation) and report back to the Judge are specialist court social workers (CAFCASS) and ‘independent’ court experts (such as psychologists, social workers). The voices of both child and parent are represented within the assessments prepared by expert and court professionals (and also via their own legal teams).

The questions I often consider are:

1. How far is the ‘accuracy’ of information given to the Judge reflective of professionals’ own understandings and biases in relation to autism?

2. Are court outcomes for autistic families dependent upon the competency and knowledge (relating to autism) held by the presiding Judge?

(This is an area I am particularly interested in. My own personal experience suggests that assessments prepared by court appointed professionals reflect only how the professionals themselves view autism - for example, as a medical, deficit requiring treatment or rendering a person as less capable than a non-autistic person.)

What is already known?

Disabled parents may be at more risk from having their parental rights terminated:

“Child welfare agencies may have policies and practices … that adversely affect parents with disabilities … institutional ableism may influence the overrepresentation of parents with disabilities, high rates of termination of parental rights, inadequate services and support, and denial of services and supports.” (Powell, R. M., Parish, S. L., Mitra, M., Waterstone, M., & Fournier, S. (2022). Child welfare system inequities experienced by disabled parents: towards a conceptual framework. Disability & Society, 39(2), 291–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2022.2071675)

Autistic families are overrepresented within children’s (safeguarding) services:

“There is a paucity of literature on social work with autistic people. This is surprising when autistic people may be overrepresented in the populations that social workers assess and support … social workers can produce inaccurate assessments of autistic peoples’ needs due to a lack of knowledge about autism.” (Philip Heslop, Matthew Bushell, Reporting Findings from an Exploratory Study of Social Workers’ Perceptions about autism Training, The British Journal of Social Work, Volume 53, Issue 6, September 2023, Pages 3218–3236, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcad108)

“Safeguarding procedures are most prevalent amongst families headed by either a lone mother and / or neurodivergent parent (s).” (Parental_Blame_PDA_Research_Report_Running_JataHall.pdf)

Autistic mothers were found to have “often felt ‘parent-blamed’ … for their child’s difficulties or ‘treated as a problem parent’ … when advocating for their child’s needs …and for others it was experienced as not being believed, accused of ‘making stuff up’”. (Dugdale, A.-S., Thompson, A. R., Leedham, A., Beail, N., & Freeth, M. (2021). Intense connection and love: The experiences of autistic mothers. Autism, 25(7), 1973-1984. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211005987)

“In one third (34%) of the 200 most recently concluded care proceedings cases examined for the study, there was reliable – mostly expert – evidence that one or more of the parents involved had learning disabilities or learning difficulties.” - (This includes ADHD parents but excludes autistic parents). (Babies in care proceedings: What do we know about parents with learning disabilities or difficulties? - Nuffield Family Justice Observatory)

Parenting capability assessment tools may be inappropriate for neurodivergent parents:

“An important determinant of care proceedings’ outcomes was parenting capacity. Standardised assessment tools were often applied, such as parent assessment manual (PAMS) or ParentAssess. An important limitation of the more frequently used tool, PAMS, included that it was not used in practice as it had been intended – this is, to assess, tailor learning, and reassess, rather than as a standalone assessment. This meant that parents with learning disabilities or learning difficulties had a limited chance to prove themselves with the support of targeted learning.” (Babies in care proceedings: What do we know about parents with learning disabilities or difficulties? - Nuffield Family Justice Observatory)

Parent-carer advocacy can be misidentified as ‘fabricated and induced illness’, thus erroneously directing parents through safeguarding procedures:

“Parents acting as advocates for their children and as experts in their child’s behaviour when not in a formal situation can unfortunately create tension between parents and professionals. In some cases, this knowledge can be viewed with suspicion, and even interpreted as an indicator of FII.” (autism-and-parental-blame-literature-review-final-version-feb-2024.pdf)

Research into the experiences of autistic people in the family court arena “showed significant misunderstandings about autism, and a system which struggled to make appropriate adjustments which would allow autistic court users to have access to justice on an equivalent basis to non-autistic litigants”. (George, R., Crane, L., & Remington, A. (2020). ‘Our normal is different’: autistic adults’ experiences of the family courts. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 42(2), 204–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2020.1751928)

Family Court processes can be seen as particularly problematic for women (mothers).

Neustein and Lesher (2005, p 27) write that “the antimother bias that thrives in the family courts has accommodated extreme psychological theories”, pointing to the controversial use of concepts such as ‘Parental Alienation Syndrome’, ‘Malicious Mother Syndrome’ and ‘Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy’ to both discredit the testimony of mothers within the Family Court and provide an evidential basis for allegations of harm caused by mothering. (From Madness to Mutiny: Why Mothers are Running from the Family Courts and ... By Amy Neustein, Michael Lesher)

Where are the expert witnesses with an affirming autism knowledge base?

Part of the difficulties I encountered with family court assigned experts was the lens through which an understanding of autism was considered. My self-advocacy attempts at portraying affirming lived-experience conflicted with professional expertise gained from a medicalised / clinical approach to understanding autism.

Although experts instructed by the family courts are considered ‘independent’ and are agreed upon by all parties involved, it is court social workers who lead instructions. The pool of experts available to the family court is (in my limited and personal experience) seemingly sparse with affirming expertise operating from the neurodiversity paradigm.

Further, those experts with a competent understanding of autistic people note how the court system is not always conducive to creating the best outcomes for the families involved:

“My stance in Court is always to try and educate about autism, about the ways in which bi-directional communication differences between autistic and non-autistic people might lead to misunderstandings, about the ways in which different cognitive processing will make different things important to autistic and non-autistic people, but that both are equally as valid, about the fact that autistic parenting is different not disordered. And sometimes I am faced with a Barrister who will then do anything possible to distort this or to shred me as an expert … Surely our role as professionals is to work together to understand and support families, not to destroy them? And yet, that is what it can feel like in Court for FII. Destruction. The system needs an overhaul, and it is long overdue.” (Dr Gullen-Scott - FII CASES - My Personal Experience in the Family Courts - Sunshine Support)

Child arrangements and family court proceedings.

Matters can become further complicated for autistic families when parents are separated and child arrangements (including who the child should live with) require family court oversight.

For example, in private family court proceedings (proceedings brought by a parent rather than a local authority) matters relating to best-care of an autistic child may become relevant. Legal arguments in this context may position around differing parenting styles and the appropriateness for an autistic child.

Dr Judy Eaton writes:

“Often this involves the non-resident parent claiming that they ‘do not see any difficulties’ when the child or young person is spending time with them, and attributing any challenges experienced to ‘poor parenting’ on the part of the parent who spends most time with the child. There is a great variation in understanding of Autism amongst expert witnesses and this is further complicated if the child is ‘masking’ or holding things together at either school, the non-resident parent’s home, or both. Very often in these situations, the child is only sufficiently comfortable to be their true self in the place where they feel safest … In some cases, this can lead to accusations of Fabricated or Induced Illness, where one parent is accused of effectively making up the difficulties that have been reported. Once a case has progressed this far, each ‘side’ in the dispute (whether this is about support, education, custody, or access arrangements) will have their own legal representation, and each side will employ their own expert witnesses to present their case. In this situation, it is often the side whose expert presents the most convincing evidence (as far as the judge is concerned) who will effectively win. The problem is that in this situation no one really wins. This can, and does, lead to children and young people failing to access an appropriate assessment and/or diagnosis. There is a growing awareness of the potential difficulties in terms of support, mental health problems, and long term outcomes for those children and young people who are undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. The collateral damage and trauma caused for the parent who has effectively ‘lost’ their fight, for an assessment and, most probably had their parenting scrutinised in a less than complimentary manner, will last for years.” (When parents disagree over the need for an assessment - Help for Psychology) (Note, I have added BOLD)

Domestic violence and perpetrator use of parent-blame (in relation to parenting autistic children).

Stories and experiences shared by parent-carers of autistic-PDA children in 2022 (Parental Blame and the PDA Profile of Autism: The Experiences of Domestic Abuse Survivors) suggest that for some mothers, abusive ex-partners utilised autism provision services to continue their abusive behaviour through the use of mother-blame.

“Several parent-carers shared how their ex-partners harnessed the systems of assessment and / or support to continue perpetrating abusive behaviour towards them … Disability-specific professionals should recognise the specific vulnerabilities of parent-carers who have been subjected to domestic abuse and ensure that SEND systems provide safe and accessible routes to accessing support for their children.” (Alice Running)

The terrifying consequences of misunderstanding autism in the Family Court arena.

Historically, Family Court hearings have been closed to public scrutiny. However, with the recently introduced ‘right to report scheme’, outcomes in relation to autistic families are being reported by journalists.

As one such report demonstrates, a lack of autism competency can lead to the misappropriation of mental health labels, resulting in care orders being made:

“An autistic mother and daughter are suing Birmingham City Council for separating them during child protection proceedings claiming that the council was negligent in pursuing a care order, did not understand neurodiversity, and had breached their human right to family life … Local authority staff claimed the mother was mentally unwell and had a borderline personality disorder, and applied for a care order.” (Neurodiverse Mother and Daughter Sue Birmingham Council for ‘Wrongful’ Separation – Byline Times)

An emerging legal understanding in relation to the blaming of autistic families?

One UK legal firm (and I cannot make a personal recommendation as I have not worked with this firm) has identified key aspects of support they offer autistic families. Information taken directly from their website states that support includes:

• Understanding the deep rooted trauma that families from neurodivergent and special needs communities may experience as a result of being misunderstood, and providing trauma informed representation in response;

• Identifying and addressing misplaced ‘parental blame’, intersectional bias and discriminatory practices where welfare concerns stem from an individual’s hidden disability/special needs;

• Raising awareness amongst professionals in relation to neurodivergence and hidden disabilities; and

• Advocating for reform of the family justice system in relation to neurodivergence and hidden disabilities. (Family Law Solicitors Specialising in Autism & ADHD | Duncan Lewis)

“Many cases come to court where local authorities are issuing proceedings in respect of children with hidden disabilities such as autism and ADHD. Quite often in these cases, the children are beyond parental control because they are not receiving the support and services they need from the wider system, yet the cases brought to court place the blame on the parents.” (Duncan Lewis Solicitor looks at Autism in Family Justice Law)

New guidance relating to neurodivergence and family court accessibility:

Guidance issued to UK family court practitioners (January 2025) points to a potential compromise in Human Rights law should neurodivergence not be recognised and accommodated for involved parties:

“Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division and Chair of the Family Justice Council, acknowledged that failure to recognise and accommodate neurodivergence within the Family Justice System leads to parties, witnesses, and children not being able to participate fully, and that equal access to justice is fundamental to a functioning and fair system.” (Overcoming the barriers: neurodiversity guidance from the Family Justice Council | Resolution)

“This guidance is primarily intended for legal practitioners working within the Family Justice System. Separate guidance will be prepared for the Judiciary. The evidence available suggests that neurodivergence is overrepresented among court users and the fact that it is often underdiagnosed is likely to further mask its prevalence in those accessing family justice. Failure to recognise and take into account neurodivergence impacts children and families within the Family Justice System in two key, and intertwined, ways: (a) Assessments undertaken before, during and after proceedings, or as part of dispute resolution; and (b) Barriers to participation in proceedings, which in turn restricts access to justice and to a fair trial. Failure to recognise and accommodate neurodivergence within the Family Justice System leads to parties, witnesses and children not being able to fully participate in proceedings and dispute resolution, potentially compromising their Article 6 and Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)4 and/or Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child.” (Family Justice Council Guidance on Neurodiversity in the Family Justice System for Practitioners) (Note, I have added BOLD)

And finally! If you have read through this lengthy newsletter - thank you! This edition has been less of a newsletter and more of a curation of information relating to autism and the family court arena. My purpose is to provide useful and evidentially-based information to support both empowerment for autistic families and system change.

Moving forwards, my ‘Challenging Blame in Autism Provision’ newsletters will be produced bimonthly to accommodate my increased workload in other areas :)

Many thanks again for reading,

Alice X

Subscribe now

Share

Share Alice Running

As I move forwards into 2025 I will be completing some on-going projects and beginning some new.

My second book with Jessica Kingsley Publishers is due for publication towards Autumn 2025 and, for those who may not know, is an in-depth exploration around blame towards autistic families. Not only will the book include my own experiences of such but it will take a detailed look at the many ways autistic children, family members and parents are blamed, rather than effectively supported or provided for.

I’m also excited to be contributing a chapter to a forthcoming handbook for social work practice. Having the opportunity to share my experiences of parent-carer blame with the social work sector is incredibly important in terms of breaking down aspects of stigma and stereotyping often wrongly assigned to autistic people (and their families).

I also hope to soon share some academic contributions I have written in relation to social care practice, misunderstanding autism and parent-carer blame. ‘Watch this space’, as they say!

Permissive Parenting - Further research identified:

I wrote about the concept of ‘permissive parenting’ in my November 2024 Newsletter.

Parent-carers of autistic children may find themselves accused of parenting permissively by professionals working with their children who may misidentify the child-led, compassionate parenting approaches often favoured (because they are often the only way not to increase distress) by parents to autistic and PDA children.

In November’s (2024) newsletter I shared a research paper that considered the impact of ‘permissive parenting’ upon autistic children with authors concluding that ‘permissive parenting’ styles had no significant impact upon the ‘internalising behaviours’ (such as social withdrawal) of autistic children.

I have recently read another academic paper which references the concept of ‘permissive parenting’ within the context of parenting autistic children. In this paper, authors reference research finding that:

“Higher maternal autistic traits were linked to a permissive parenting style (responsive, but less boundaried) towards their typically developing children, but not to their autistic children.”

This reference may be especially useful for autistic mothers of autistic children (like myself) for whom involved professionals believe their ‘permissive’ parenting style is causing a specific ‘issue’ relating to their autistic child. Typically, parent-carers share how they are told their ‘lack of boundaries’ is responsible for an environment not meeting the needs of an autistic child (‘school refusal’, for example).

Links to the research papers are below:

Parents on the autism continuum: Links with parenting efficacy - ScienceDirect

Intense connection and love: The experiences of autistic mothers - Amber-Sophie Dugdale, Andrew R Thompson, Alexandra Leedham, Nigel Beail, Megan Freeth, 2021

For autistic mothers of autistic children who are experiencing parent-carer blame, both research papers highlight how autistic mothers parent with comparable effectiveness to non-autistic mothers. (And why wouldn’t we?! I hold some rather strong thoughts around why it is necessary to establish this - we shouldn’t have to - and why we need to be compared to non-autistic mothers who appear to be held as some gold-standard benchmark to aspire to. Anyway! The research is very much needed to dispel myths and associated blame.)

The research paper ‘Intense connection and love …’ is a validating read for autistic mothers as it also explores specific strengths an autistic neurotype may bring to parenting. I particularly related to considerations of how shared autistic identifications within the mother-child relationship enabled a connectedness. Authors also considered how some autistic mothers may seek ‘high standards of performance’ which brings ‘increased resilience and dedication to the challenge of motherhood’. (Dugdale et al. 2021)

Autistic mothers may be more at risk of parental blame from autism-service professionals (Ferguson and Hollingsworth. 2024; Running and Jata-Hall. 2023) and so sourcing research and academic output that challenges why this may be is of crucial importance.

Until February,

Alice X

www.challengeblame.com

www.alicerunningwriter.com

Connect …

For anyone who wishes to join me on social media, I am active on:

Facebook

Instagram

Wordpress (Archived blogs around my journey through the ‘SEND’ system.)

BlueSky

Share

Subscribe now

Thank you to all the new subscribers who have joined following the release of November’s edition. As a short recap, this newsletter is specifically focused upon the use of parental blame within autism services and provision - I use this space to share and signpost to research projects, articles and projects that I feel provide useful challenge to the practice of parental blame. Occasionally I share my own lived experience as an autistic lone mother to autistic young people, and also share any relevant updates relating to my own work (as an author, writer and campaigner).

December’s issue signposts to five items of interest:

1. Academic article - ‘I’m sick of being the problem’: Autistic mothers’ experiences of interacting with schools for their autistic children.

This article presents findings of research that sought the views and experiences of autistic parents’ interactions with schools for their autistic children. Authors point to how:

“Autistic mothers repeatedly expressed feeling like they were in a ‘war zone’, fighting ongoing battles to gain the necessary support for their autistic child and were ‘sick of being [viewed as] the problem’. They also felt that their expertise as parents – and experiential expertise as autistic parents was often overlooked or ignored. All of this had negative effects on their and their children’s mental health.”

To access the full article, click on the citation below:

Rabba, A. S., Smith, J., Hall, G., Alexander, V., Batty, K., Datta, P., Goodall, E., Heyworth, M., Lamb, S., Lawson, W., Lilley, R., Reid, K., Syeda, N., & Pellicano, E. (2024). ‘I’m sick of being the problem’: Autistic mothers’ experiences of interacting with schools for their autistic children. Autism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241297223

2. Research Project, Final Report - WM Adass Autism and Parental Blame Project – Blamed Instead of Helped.

Key findings from the project include:

* Autism is widely misunderstood by professionals.

* Accusations of blame result in trauma, long term damage.

* Autistic parents may be at higher risk of parental blame.

* Parents of autistic children have a high level of mistrust in services and professionals.

* Parents of autistic children may be at higher risk of child protection proceedings.

* Parental knowledge is not recognised or valued.

* Current support offered to parents is often unhelpful and sometimes reported as doing more harm than good.

This is now the third study (that I am aware of) to replicate extremely similar findings.

You can access the full report by clicking on the link below:

…WM Adass Autism and Parental Blame Project – Blamed Instead of Helped…

3. Book - Improving Mental Health Therapies for Autistic Children and Young People: Promoting Self-agency, Curiosity and Collaboration.

For any parent who has witnessed their autistic child struggle to access CAMHS (Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service) support, this book may be worth a read. Engaging with talking therapies can be particularly difficult for autistic people because they are typically not designed for us in mind - (verbal communication with a virtual stranger in a clinical setting can present and create additional anxiety for autistic people for a wide variety of reasons). Further, when a child or young person ‘fails to engage’ with mental health services, blaming narratives may be used rather than service provision identifying why and how therapies are inaccessible for autistic people.

I am pleased to read that this book brings together contributions from both autistic and non-autistic experts:

“This unique, collaborative book, featuring contributions from autistic and non-autistic experts, presents cutting-edge thinking on mental health and service transformation in relation to autistic children and young people (CYP) and their families.

Investigating how to implement collaborative approaches to supporting autistic CYP's mental health, this book considers ways for professionals to share power and co-design models of support, promoting self-agency and supportive environments for autistic acceptance and wellbeing. Each chapter includes reflections and vignettes from autistic CYP and allies, key questions and thinking points for readers to consider. The book also includes a link for an e-library with multimedia material with the top take aways for clinicians such as animations, flyers and recorded interviews.

The book will be of immense interest to individuals working with autistic CYP and their families in mental health at any level.”

Details of the book can be found here:

https://amzn.eu/d/3xHgLx2

4. Legal interest in FII (Fabricated and / or Induced Illness).

The following legal team - Daniel Cooper | Solicitor | IKP Solicitors - are seeking to speak with families who wish to challenge allegations of FII made against them. They are particularly keen to speak with autistic parents, and / or families with autistic or neurodivergent children.

5. UK Commission - The Children and Families Truth Commission (CFTC)

Many thanks to a subscriber for forwarding this information on to me.

The CFTC is a parent-led, human rights focused investigation of child protection in the UK. Their focus will be to investigate whether public bodies (Local Authorities / Police / Healthcare) have breached human rights legislation whilst conducting child protection matters.

The CFTC launched its first report via the House of Lords (UK) - ‘Eroding the right to family life: Human rights violations in Britain’s child protection systems’. This report contains findings of two surveys exploring families’ experiences of children’s social care.

Findings that are particularly pertinent for autistic families are:

• 67% of respondent families said that their mental health was used as evidence to say they were unable to care for their child. (Note, I am not conflating autism with mental health needs. There is a connection between autistic families seeking adequate autism provision and blame being appropriated in lieu of such, with parental ‘mental health’ erroneously cited.)

• 94% said that child welfare assessments were not accurate or based on true information.

• 93% of respondent families said that they did not receive the support they asked for, either by their local authority of other services.

To access the work of the Commission, click here.

To read the report in full, follow this link:

"Eroding The Right To Family Life" Report by The Children and Families Truth Commission, 15 November 2024

Apologies in advance for any errors within this months newsletter. I usually proofread and edit before uploading but there are a few days until Christmas and my children like to celebrate and the Mum jobs are mounting!

I have five exciting projects forthcoming in 2025 and I hope to be able to share more on those early into the new year.

Whether you celebrate the winter holiday period or not, I hope you have a peaceful and restful transition into 2025.

Alice X

alicerunningwriter@gmail.com

www.alicerunningwriter.com

www.challengeblame.com

Subscribe now

Share

This month has seen substantial mainstream news coverage of ‘SEND’ related issues - families and parents have been able to share their stories relating to tactical Local Authority delays, inappropriate and inaccessible school placements, and the horrific abuse of autistic children (seclusion and restraint). It is certainly helpful to have national conversations around the abhorrent practices and mistreatment that our autistic children regularly face.

Here are some of the stories that I have found relatable:

Inside the SEND crisis where council 'delay tactics' are denying parents support

'I quit to fight for my son': how the SEND crisis is wrecking women's careers

'We are broken': Surge in complaints over SEN support | ITV News

CCTV shows pupils abused and locked in padded room - BBC News

Each story relates to autistic children and their school experience. For each parent sharing their individual story, how many more families will have almost identical stories to tell? My family’s experience of navigating the ‘SEND’ system is represented in each one of these articles. The accumulation of rejection, mistreatment, injustice and inequality for a whole generation of children and young people is truly heartbreaking.

Parenting autistic children and ‘permissive parenting’.

Parents of autistic children commonly report being told by involved professionals that their children’s ‘behaviour’ (autistic presentation, communication or response) is due to a lack of parental boundaries. Parents report being told that they allow their child too much control, or do not instill enough discipline. (Running and Jata-Hall, 2023)

When my child was no longer able to attend school (and withdrew himself from that environment), I was told that I was simply not being firm enough and that I must explain to him that he had no choice but to attend.

This assessment of parenting is based upon the Baumrind model of parenting styles which was developed in 1971 and is still appropriated by social work practitioners (and other child-related professionals) as a framework by which to identify healthy and concerning types of parenting.

Baumrind considers the optimal parenting style to be ‘authoritative’, embodying high levels of both warmth and control over the child. Where a parent shows warmth but sets (and / or enforces) few rules or boundaries, Baumrind considers this to be ‘permissive parenting’.

Research conducted in 2020 finds that “PARENTING STYLE DID NOT PRODUCE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT RESULTS FOR INTERNALISING BEHAVIOURS” (Clauser et al, 2020. p.16) within autistic children. (‘Internalising behaviours’ - research author phrasing - are explained as social withdrawal and / or limited peer engagement, which I am connecting to situational issues such as school attendance and social interaction.)

Whilst Clauser’s et al research utilises deficit-based language and categorises autistic presentation and communication as ‘behavioral’, there is some merit to be found in their conclusions relating to parenting styles (as defined by Baumrind) and the lack of evidence to support a premise that parenting style affects the presenting ‘internalising behaviours’ of an autistic child.

The research authors also consider ‘parenting’ in terms of stress parents have been exposed to whilst advocating and attempting to obtain support for their children:

“Parents of children with ASD are faced with a multitude of challenges and stressors … parents face advocating for the appropriate education, care …” (Clauser et al, 2020. p. 17)

This consideration is perhaps useful in supporting the premise that it is the navigation of public provision which causes stress and trauma for the family unit, rather than the inadequacy of parenting skill.

Research authors also consider (what they refer to as) the bi-directional nature of parenting autistic children, in that it is often necessary to adapt parenting style to suit the specific needs of an autistic child:

“…the extreme challenges of parenting a child with ASD may influence the style a parent chooses.” (Clauser et al, 2020. p.4)

Such reflections and overall conclusions by the research authors may provide useful support for parents who wish to challenge professional assessment alleging it is the impact of parenting style which produces withdrawal and avoidant type presentations within their autistic children. Certainly, I think this paper is useful in terms of challenging the use of the Baumrind framework for assessing the parenting of autistic children. For autistic children who are also highly anxious and / or demand avoidant, authoritative parenting would only serve to exacerbate a distressed response and this research could support the need for professionals to employ an alternative framework for parental assessments - the category of permissive parenting is not appropriate.

However, the research paper does come with a !HEALTH WARNING! Authors employ considerable deficit based language, including a suggestion for ‘treatment’, and consider a causal link between parental style and “externalising behaviours in children with ASD” (Clauser et al, 2020. p, 16). I am concerned that this could support the view of some professionals and practitioners that a) external autistic communication and presentation is undesirable and requires management (ABA), and that b) it is appropriate to place causality with parents for normal autistic presentations - both of which neglect to consider the role of inappropriate support and provision in creating distress for autistic children.

The full research article can be accessed here:

Parenting styles, parenting stress, and behavioral outcomes in children with autism.

My newsletters are a space to share information which may be useful in challenging the many and varied blaming narratives that autistic people and their families face when attempting to secure useful provision.

I also share other useful information and my own autistic experiences via my Facebook page.

Until December,

Best wishes,

Alice X

Share Alice Running

Share

Subscribe now

Happy Autumn! Here is my monthly newsletter for October, with another selection of article links and participatory links that may be useful in challenging (parent-carer) blame within autism-based service provision.

Related Articles

I’m currently preparing a chapter contribution around blame and social work practice. The following links are taken from my reading around this subject. I’m presenting them with little critical analysis as my primary focus for this newsletter is empowerment - if you are affected by blaming narratives whilst attempting to source useful and appropriate autism-based support, then the research and article links I provide may help contextualise your experience (and help with internalising blame). They may also help any associated legal support in understanding the systemic nature of blame that autistic families often face.

Mother blame and emotion work: a sociological study on Swedish mothers of children with long-term school absenteeism.

Citation - Laurin, E. (2023) Mother blame and emotion work: a sociological study on Swedish mothers of children with long-term school absenteeism, Emotions and Society, (XX(XX): 1-18, DOI: 10.1332/26316897Y2023D000000008

This article presents analysis of interviews with 31 Swedish mothers with ‘school-absent’ children and the emotion-work undertaken by the mothers as they navigate the education and social care systems in support of their children. All of the children are neurodivergent (ADHD and / or autistic).

The key themes arising in this article are of mother-blame, the high level of responsibility placed on the mothers to obtain support for their children (which Laurin likens to a professional role) and the expectation for mothers to do this in a way that is perceived as calm and rational by state professionals. The article also discusses the differences in emotional presentation between working class and middle class mothers and how that potentially impacts mother blame.

Laurin writes how previous studies show that mother blame is particularly directed towards working-class, disabled mothers, mothers of colour and single mothers.

Laurin considers how mothers interviewed often worked hard to contain their own emotions of frustration and anxiety at the systems in place, to present a calm and rational interface when interacting with professionals. Mothers with greater access to social capital (friends and family) and cultural capital (Laurin suggests that middle class mothers have been raised to manage emotions in a way that aligns more with professional expectations) may find it easier to meet the expectations of professionals (in terms of emotional regulation) thus avoiding aspects of mother blame.

The article presents the direct experiences of several mothers and is useful in highlighting how difficult and bureaucratic navigating systems of support can become, with one mother sharing how she was required to attend three meetings per week, leading to (rational) worry about having time for paid employment.

The neurodivergence of mothers interviewed is not stipulated so there may be further intersectional experiences involved with the emotion work performed by mothers interviewed (the differences with emotional expression in neurodivergent mothers for example, and their masking or not of such).

It’s not Autism. It’s Your Parenting. An Autoethnographic Exploration of the Relationships Between Professionals and Parents of an Autistic Child in the UK.

Citation - Mitra, Barbara Dr (2022) “It’s not Autism. It’s Your Parenting. An Autoethnographic Exploration of the Relationships Between Professionals and Parents of an Autistic Child in the UK,” Ought: The Journal of Autistic Culture: Vol. 3: Iss. 2, Article 6. DOI: 10.9707/2833-1508.1091

In this article Dr Mitra shares how her parenting was often blamed for her son’s autistic presentation and details how her experiences of receiving such blame impacted her family. Dr Mitra discusses the diagnostic process and shares how her son’s diagnostic profile came to also include a PDA presentation (alongside autism).

Throughout the article, personal aspects of interactions with health and school professionals are considered by the author as she ‘paints a familiar picture’ of parental blame, professional misunderstanding of autistic presentations, refusal of support requests, school exclusions, family trauma and Child Protection interventions.

I found the section reflecting upon interactions with Child Protection professionals to be illuminating and validating, particularly when the author discusses how individual professionals with a seemingly more competent understanding of autism quickly aligned with narratives of parental blame within the context of a Child Protection conference (when previous reports were focused upon the needs and presentation of the author’s autistic son rather than parental blame).

Dr Mitra presents an overall situation whereby her expertise as a parent was not heard, resulting in unnecessary familial stress and the needs of her son not being adequately supported.

Provide your input:

Here are two opportunities to contribute towards future policy that affect the lives of autistic children, young people and their families.

Department for Education - Curriculum Review

Views and evidence are sought regarding improvements to the (UK) curriculum and assessment system. To provide your views - CLICK HERE. (Note: the survey closes 22nd November 2024)

As parents to autistic young people (and as autistic adults) we are aware of how difficult and exclusionary the curriculum and assessments for qualifications can be. This is an area that I have previously expressed my concern about, having a young person for whom the traditional route to acquiring qualifications is not adequate for his learning style.

Earlier this month I wrote:

Is there such a thing as a truly neuro-accessible, recognised qualification or exam pathway?

If there is a more accessible pathway, I haven't discovered it. It seems to me that qualification accessibility is based upon issuing a range of reasonable adjustments for exam conditions and relying on individual students to assimilate, using their best endeavours.

And what does that really assess? The students who can conform or suppress their innate differences for an allotted timescale? The students whose anxiety does not overwhelm them? The students whose support needs are minimal or fit best with what exam boards are prepared to offer?

Assessments are riddled with inequity.

School age students are typically routed through GCSE or Foundational Skills pathways (in England) - and neither are designed to allow a neurodivergent mind to thrive.

Attempting to achieve the workforce core qualifications set (English and Maths) is almost impossible for students who communicate less through speech and writing and more through physical or visual modes of expression. Trying to demonstrate knowledge and intellect through examinations that are designed to quantify neuronormative communication skills, only serves to destroy self esteem.

Whichever qualification route I attempt to source achievement for my son through, eventually becomes a mish-mash of 'the best we can do' adjustments. Yes, we can access an exam online, but there is little support to utilise the technology on exam day. Yes, we offer a Functional English qualification, but supporting an anxious speaker in the way that he needs is not allowed.

It seems to me that to achieve a workforce baseline qualification, a student's neurodivergence must be able to fit within the non-neurodivergent parameters of assessment.

I would love to see a range of neuro-accessible qualifications developed. Ones that can be delivered in a multitude of adapted ways, and where the content enables the best of neurodivergent aptitude and thinking. Qualifications that can be accredited by exam, or coursework, or evidenced by a portfolio to best suit the needs of each individual student.

We also, as a society, need to shift away from what is recognised as the baseline workforce standard and include alternative accreditations or examples of merit. Yes, some forward thinking employers do, but many professions do not.

University's are beginning to recognise that the standard qualification-based pathway only suits some people whilst excluding many others, with some 'red brick' universities offering alternative entry requirements in recognition of this. But what about those students who don't want to enter the higher education system? The apprenticeship routes that I have seen ask for minimum qualifications; the DWP 'access to work' scheme is reportedly running on lengthy waiting periods, and who knows what will happen to Personal Independence Payments in the near future.

Accessing EOTAS and having the best educational support package is only time limited. What happens when that ends? How does my son prove his talent to the world when the world only wants skills that are packaged into quantifiable qualifications?

Law Commission consultation on disabled children’s social care law.

The Law Commission for England and Wales has been tasked with reviewing the legal framework governing social care for disabled children in England.

To access and input your views - CLICK HERE. (Note: the consultation closes 20th January 2025)

Parent-carers often share how access to social care services for their autistic children (such as respite or PA provision) can be inappropriately assessed through generic social care assessments which are based on screening for safeguarding issues and are carried out with practitioners with less knowledge around disability. Additionally, parent-carers also share how disability specific social work teams can lack the appropriate autism knowledge and competency, also leading to assessments based around safeguarding not support. Parent-carers also share how disabled social work teams refuse to assess autistic children and young people by categorising them as not meeting the criteria for disability-specific support. Narratives that blame a rife throughout this process, leaving autistic families at a disadvantage in accessing the social care support they are entitled to.

Until next time,

my very best wishes,

Alice X

Subscribe now

Share

Share Alice Running

This is September’s round-up of information I hope will be useful in challenging (parent-carer) blame within autism (and associated) services.

Centre for Disability Studies Conference 2024 (CDS24)

At the beginning of September I was proud to display the findings from ‘Parental Blame and the PDA Profile of Autism’ at CDS24. The conference attracts disability activists and academics from around the world and so to secure a place to present our work was an achievement.

I met some lovely fellow attendees who were keen to share their personal experiences of navigating services for their children and the difficulties they encountered with having a PDA profile of autism sufficiently understood.

Presentations at the conference were many and varied, with autism and neurodivergence (more generally) being a central theme in three other poster presentations:

Autistic People’s Perspectives on Functioning Labels and Associated Reasons, and Community Connectedness. (Keates, N; Martin, F; Wadlock, K.)

A study of 516 participants with the aim of ascertaining the language preferences of autistic adults and how preference related to ‘Autistic Community Connectedness’.

The phrase ‘Autistic Person’ gained the most positive preference, with over 95% of participants agreeing that this phrase is ‘okay’. This phrase was closely followed by the terms ‘Autists’ or ‘Autistics’, with between 75% and 80% of participants in agreement that these phrases are ‘okay’.

The term ‘Aspergers’ was found to be the phrase which acquired the most ‘not okay’ votes with just over 60%, and closely followed by the phrase ‘Living with Autism’.

Language around autism (particularly language that is used to refer to autistic people) is important as some phraseology can be used by service professionals to denote ‘functioning’, thus assigning strengths or deficits and subsequently reducing identity and provision to perceived capability.

Exploring Belonging: The narratives of autistic people who attend(ed) Churches and Mosques. Wadlock, K.

Interviews with eight participants focused upon the experiences of autistic people within their religious spaces. Overall, Wadlock notes that participants experienced barriers to worship and found that the concept of being an ‘ideal worshipper’ is rooted within “an idealistic set of expectations and standards enshrined in normalcy” (Wadlock, 2024)

Identity, Employability, and Success: Why Tailored Employability Support is Important for Disabled and Neurodivergent Students to See Their Value and to Succeed After Graduating. (Bark, Lydia)

Bark proposes key issues for universities to consider when designing employability support for disabled and neurodivergent students, including:

• considering how to address the needs and identities of students without assuming or imposing limitations, and

• defining success in a way to ensure it is inclusive and accessible.

Bark writes that, “for disabled and neurodivergent students, success and employability might look different to their peers…success after graduating is therefore less about employment statistics and more about individuals having clear ideas about what they want and need from a workplace.” (Bark, 2024)

The Autism and Parental Blame Project - Focus Group Report - (focus-group-report-final-vs-adjust-2.pdf (wm-adass.org.uk))

This is a project commissioned by NHS England for which I have already shared a link to the associated Literature Review (which cites our study - Parental Blame and the PDA Profile of Autism).

“The Autism and Parental Blame Project was commissioned by NHS England in response to complaints from a number of parents who felt their child's autism had been missed, or misdiagnosed, because professionals involved in autism assessments had wrongly ascribed their child’s autistic presentation to poor parenting. The project has been facilitated by WM-ADASS with academic support provided by Dr. Jason Schaub from the University of Birmingham.”

The project has recently published a report of the focus group work undertaken and summarises the experiences of parents navigating services for their autistic children as:

“• Parents felt judged and accused of poor parenting when using strategies that worked best for their child. • Parents were often not listened to, felt dismissed, and not believed by professionals. ▪ Professionals were often quick to make assumptions based on little or no evidence or validation. ▪ Professionals failed to follow their own guidelines and polices. ▪ Professionals lacked training and understanding of autism and hidden disabilities and mistook this for trauma which in turn caused trauma. ▪ The multiple, devastating, and lasting impacts of parental blame, examples of child protection issues including Fabricated and Induced Illness, fractured relationships, and family breakdown. ▪ The need for parents to quickly become experts and skill themselves up to defend themselves. ▪ Parents felt that they needed to fight the system to get the basics for their child and to be heard as parents. ▪ Parents best experiences of services were when they were supported by a neurodivergent professional who just “gets it”.”

Autistic Looked After Children and Local Authority Awareness

I stumbled across this study undertaken in 2018. It makes for some interesting reading:

Awareness within local authorities of autism spectrum diagnoses of Looked-After children in England

Using Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to English Local Authorities, the researchers state that 3% of Looked After Children are autistic (and this ratio is likely much higher) compared with a 1 - 2% prevalence rate in the general population. (Why are there more autistic children in care?)

Returned data suggests that Local Authorities fail to strategically monitor autistic prevalence and associated need for their Looked After children.

Researchers point to poor academic outcomes for those autistic children in Local Authority Care when compared with academic outcomes for autistic children not in Local Authority Care.

Petition:

Thank you to a reader who sent me a link for this petition - it may be of interest to many of you:

Petition · Establish an Independent Complaints Commission for Social Care, health & Education - United Kingdom · Change.org

(Note: this petition has not been created by myself)

Westminster ‘SEND’ Debate

Speaking at an emergency Westminster debate he secured, Leeds MP Richard Burgon highlighted the many and severe failures of the current #SEND system. Raising, among many other important issues, the use of parent-carer carer blame. He went on to highlight how failure to make provision for children constitutes state neglect. A position I wholeheartedly support.

I am sure many parent-carers will be concerned that 'talk' does not equate to 'action', nor negate the trauma many children and their care-givers have experienced whilst navigating this broken system. But to have secured such an important debate is progress and to have changemakers champion our voices is crucial to having barriers to education removed.

The full debate can be read here:

SEND Provision - Hansard - UK Parliament

And finally …

I received a message from a parent-carer via my website and was unable to reply due to contact details not being left. If you happen to read this - thank you!

It was suggested that there is a lack of post-blame support for parent-carers and the families surrounding and including our autistic children. We know that blaming parents for their children’s autistic presentations can cause harm to well-being, and that navigating the public services necessary to acquire assessment and provision can cause trauma. What we don’t have is a clear and identifiable pathway for support following such difficult and traumatic times.

I aim to extend the website - www.challengeblame.com - to include signposting information relating to post-blame support. If you are an independent professional, organisation or parent-carer who knows of any relevant service, please email me for inclusion at a later date.

Until October,

Alice X

www.alicerunningwriter.com

www.challengeblame.com

Facebook

I hope the summer months have treated you well, and hello to the new readers who have found my newsletter - thank you so much for subscribing.

A small recap for new readers!

I’m Alice! I’m a late-diagnosed, autistic woman and lone parent to two autistic young people. One of whom is now at university, and the other is taught by me, at home (via an EOTAS package). My home is full of animals, books and found objects (mainly stones); to stay sane, I hike in the wilderness or run excessively, hence my acquired pseudonym - Alice Running!

When my brain is not frazzled, I write about the autistic experience in (what I hope to be) a neuroaffirming way. I authored ‘Helping Your Child With PDA Live a Happier Life’ (2021, Jessica Kingsley Publishers) and am currently putting the final touches to my second book - ‘Navigating Blame. A Guide for Parent-Carers of Autistic Children.’ (Jessica Kingsley Publishers) - which is due for release in 2025.

In 2023, I published the findings from a survey of parent-carers of autistic-PDA children, undertaken by myself and Danielle Jata-Hall (PDA Parenting). 1016 parent-carers responded to the survey and we found that 88% had experienced some form of parent-carer blame whilst attempting to source provision for their autistic children. Returned data also suggested that lone mothers and neurodivergent parents were most susceptible to extreme forms of blame such as safeguarding measures (including child protection). Harrowing accounts from parent-carers were shared with us, detailing how the trauma from their experiences of being blamed for their children’s autistic presentations had impacted family life.

The full report can be accessed via the PDA Society - Parental Blame and the PDA Profile of Autism | PDA Society Resources

Following on from this, I am producing monthly ‘Campaign to Challenge Blame’ newsletters to share any related news items, research call-outs, newly published research, media visibility or actions that readers can take.

I am a one-woman team who is mostly burnt out and exhausted after being treated in a despicable way by our Local Authority professionals and so I greatly appreciate any reader who shares resources and / or their thoughts with me. So, please do email me at alicerunningwriter.com with any useful information relating to parent-carer blame and autism.

What can be done about parent-carer blame?

Issues around parent-carer blame are deeply complex. Parent-carer blame can be seen as a tool by which service providers (Local Authorities) ‘gatekeep’ precious resources in a time where waiting lists are high and funding streams are low. But the phenomena of parent-carer blame is more complex than a funding issue, it is rooted in how disability is viewed by society and in how service provisions view disability as something to be pitied or fixed. Accounts from parent-carers suggest that many professionals (including disability specific professionals) still view autism as a disordered problem requiring interventions to change perceived behaviours. Entrenched ableism, misogyny, and racism still exist within our institutions and systems (schooling, healthcare, social care and family courts), undoubtedly impacting upon how individual professionals view and interact with parent-carers. This can all feel very overwhelming when we think about what changes need to be made to bring about an end to parent-carer blame.

Earlier in the summer I asked my Facebook followers for their thoughts around how meaningful change could be brought about:

“They [services and professionals] need to acknowledge they were wrong, apologise and let parents have an opportunity to speak to everyone about how they have been impacted - restorative justice so we can get closure and start the healing process.”

“Professionals need to respect and accept parent’s opinions. We are experts on our children. They need to understand that making up accusations against parents is harmful to the child and the entire family and causes trauma that many parents will never recover from. There needs to be change from within the system, to hold those who make false accusations against parents accountable, so that change is possible.”

“More education and regular training for professionals as knowledge on disabilities and neurodivergence is constantly evolving, yet many of these professionals have very limited and outdated knowledge and training which leads to ignorant, harmful assumptions.”

Combining the above with comments received as part of the survey ‘Parental Blame and the PDA Profile of Autism’, there are key themes identified by parent-carers:

• there is an identified mismatch between the knowledge and understanding of autism held by the autistic community and professional / service thinking. This needs to be addressed via training and combating professional bias (family profiling).

• there must be a service-led recognition of the harm caused by parent-carer blame (including the practice of making false allegations against parent-carers). This needs to be addressed via a transparent system of accountability and the use of restorative justice practices.

• greater advocacy support and access to legal resources (free at point of use) would assist with achieving professional and service accountability.

• a national framework for healing should be established (free at point of use) for families to address mental health issues caused by the navigation of autism services.

To achieve awareness of parent-carer blame, and to bring about change, a concerted campaign effort is required. Please let me know which method of campaign is safest, easiest and / or more preferable for parent-carers? (Feel free to email me with your thoughts also.)

… and finally, LINKS:

You may be interested in:

• The work of Rightful Lives - http://rightfullives.org.uk/

• Updates from Professor Luke Clements and Dr Ana Aiello’s campaign for the withdrawal of RCPCH FII (Fabricated and Induced Illness) Guidance - Call to withdraw FII guidance – Luke Clements

• The lived experiences of autistic mothers.

  Beattie, S. (Author). Jul 2024

  Student thesis: Doctoral Thesis › Doctorate in Childhood Studies - The lived experiences of autistic mothers — Queen's University Belfast (qub.ac.uk)

As always, my very best wishes.

Alice X

www.challengeblame.com

www.alicerunningwriter.com

Facebook

Share

Share Alice Running

Leave a comment