Not sure of background

I don't think so - on the whole. It IS close in tone, less so in colour. You could go for a stronger tonal contrast, which would push the child forward - but I rather like the under-stated approach here, because he commands your attention anyway and I don't think needs greater emphasis.

Outvoted again, curses.... I sort of agree with the others, really, but my thinking was that the little horror - little fellow, I mean, natch.. - is an arresting sight in himself and if anything pushes himself forward for attention. I don't think he needs the contrast to make him more dominating in the picture. It depends on whether you're viewing the picture dispassionately in tonal terms, or whether you're looking at it more as a psychological (?) study; I think the way you've painted it centres on the child, as of course it should, and pushes the question of technique somewhat to the side. But quite possibly I'm getting too clever for my own good. I've not painted very many portraits, and I've always had trouble with the background colour and tone - I think darker backgrounds tend to belong on more formal, 'dignified' portraits, for the boardroom or the old Colonel's library; a child's portrait, especially one which shows that little horror element, seems to me to call for a lighter tone throughout.

That's a massive improvement. Ifni was being uber picky I'd say Thers a line / splodge running to the right of tje right arm as we look at it from shoulder to leg. If you could blend that out it be excellent David