Placement Case Study. I will examine my role in the identification, assessment and management of risk to K. and N. and will consider and critically evaluate theoretical perspectives in relation to risk along with current legislation and policy.

University Degree Social studies

PLACEMENT - CASE STUDY

Vignette – Family A

K. is a male, of dual heritage (White / African Caribbean), aged 14 years

and has a younger sister, N., who is 9 years old. N. is also of dual heritage

(White / Asian). Both K. and N. live with their mother, D., in a small town

close to a busy city centre. D. had been in a relationship with R. for

approximately two years prior to the involvement of Children’s Services.

During this time there had been a number of domestic abuse incidents,

some of an extremely serious nature, which had been witnessed by both K.

and N. Following the most recent incident, an initial assessment was carried

out and this resulted in a decision to proceed to Initial Child Protection Case

Conference (ICPCC). Subsequently the mother separated from R. and moved

out of the area with the children. A few months later, however, D. and

the children moved back into the area and Children’s Services were alerted

by K.’s school as to the family’s whereabouts. The case was re-opened with

a decision to complete core assessments on the children initially, rather than

to proceed straight to ICPCC, given that the mother had separated from R.

At this point the case was allocated to myself and I began the completion of

core assessments on K. and N.

Here I will examine my role in the identification, assessment and management of risk to K. and N. and will consider and critically evaluate theoretical perspectives in relation to risk along with current legislation and policy. By reflecting on my practice I hope to demonstrate how I have considered issues such as power imbalances and social justice and how this consideration has assisted me to work in anti-oppressive ways with the service users involved. I will not describe in chronological order the course of the intervention thus far, but rather will focus on salient parts of the work with the family and will make links to the National Occupational Standards Key Roles and GSCC Code of Practice throughout.

Theories of risk vary throughout time and across culture and are inextricably linked with societal and media perceptions of what constitutes risk and danger. From the role played by fate, destiny and religion in negative outcomes, harmful consequences are now felt to be a result of personal autonomy and human agency. It has been argued that this shift in collective thinking has led to a ‘culture of fear’ of aversive outcomes (Furedi, 2006) and therefore a ‘culture of blame’ (Douglas, 1992) when things go wrong. Consequently this has resulted in a ‘risk’ society (Beck, 1992) in which undesirable outcomes are no longer linked with chance or bad luck but are related to poor decision making, human error and accountability. Within the Social Work profession the effects of this are far reaching and, it has been argued, have led to an erosion of trust in the work carried out by Social Workers (Furedi, 2006; Neuberger, 2008: online). This in turn may have resulted in ‘risk averse’ practitioners, a culture of pessimism and somewhat defensive practice. When dealing with issues relating to children, and particularly where there are child protection concerns, it could be argued that defensive practice is not conducive to effective and balanced decision making and therefore much reflective practice is required in order to ‘…reconcile the tension between family autonomy and state intervention’ (Langan, 1993, cited in Kemshall, 2002: 80). It is from this standpoint that my involvement with Family A. began, and the assessment of possible risk to the children initially involved the completion of core assessments for K. and N.

A core assessment is:

...an in-depth assessment which...follows the structure provided by the

Assessment Framework domains and dimensions, and is carried out

whenever possible in conjunction with the child and family.

(Cleaver et al., 2009:190).

In this sense, a core assessment provides a holistic view of an individual child, taking into account both positive and negative factors within a child’s family along with factors which may contribute to increased levels of resilience in children. As D. had stated previously that she had separated from her violent partner, my perception of this task was uncomplicated. I envisaged visiting D. and discussing her understanding of the effects of domestic abuse on children with her. I also envisaged speaking with K. and N. to gauge their understanding, thoughts and feelings, assessing their individual levels of resilience and protective factors and perhaps carrying out some protective work with the family, referring on to specialist services as necessary. However, during my first visit to the family, D. stated that she had resumed her relationship with R. and wished for this to continue. She shared how she felt that their relationship could change and that the violence could stop. This immediately triggered ideas about ‘risk’ within me and at this point it was necessary for me to be open and honest with D. about the fact that I would have to seek immediate advice from my Practice Teacher and Team Manager about how best to proceed with my work with the family. I acknowledged D.’s openness and honesty and shared that I would aim to be open and honest with her throughout the assessment process but that things may now proceed differently to how I initially had anticipated, given that D. was now saying that she wished to remain in this relationship.

(KR 4 Unit 12.1; 13.2; KR 5 Units 14.2; KR 6 Unit 19.3; GSCC COP).

This is a preview of the whole essay

(KR 4 Unit 12.1; 13.2; KR 5 Units 14.2; KR 6 Unit 19.3; GSCC COP).

At this point, a Manager’s decision was made that a Working Agreement should be drawn up requesting that D. not allow R. to have any contact with the children until the outcome of the core assessments. This was felt to be necessary given the serious nature of the incidents which both of the children had been witness to, to a greater or lesser extent. These included hearing their mother being sexually assaulted and an incident during which K. felt the need to take out a knife in order to protect his mother from R. The incidents of domestic abuse described here are possible indicators of emotional abuse in that ‘…seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another...’ and ‘…causing children frequently to feel frightened or in danger…’ (HM Government, 2006:38) can have an enormous negative impact upon a child’s overall emotional health and development. Similarly, there was also a need to consider the risk of physical harm to these children, given the aforementioned situations, as ‘children are at increased risk of physical injury during an incident, either by accident or because they attempt to intervene’ (HM Government, 2010: 263).

D. reluctantly signed the Working Agreement, but was able to understand the concerns which I raised with her about the impact of domestic abuse on the emotional well-being of children in general. Despite this, however, she tended to minimise the levels of violence in her own relationship and shared how she didn’t feel that K. and N. were affected by this as they were never frightened nor showed distress. D. also shared how she felt that she was equally to blame for the violence in the relationship as she would often initiate confrontation. Similarly, both D. and R. shared with me throughout the assessment process that they would never let the children come to any physical harm and that they did try to ensure that the children did not overhear or witness any confrontations. Despite this, it was necessary for me to consider what research has shown in relation to domestic abuse, and this includes the fact that:

prolonged and /or regular exposure to domestic violence can have a

serious impact on children’s safety and welfare, despite efforts of parents

to protect them.

(HM Government, 2010: 262).

These feelings and parental perspectives were, however, recorded and discussed at length with D. as part of the core assessment process, in order to assist her understanding of why the protective steps being taken were felt to be so vital and therefore to encourage partnership working.

(KR 4 Units 12.1; 12.2; 12.3; KR 5 Units14.2; 14.4; 16.4; KR 6 Unit 19.1; 19.2; 19.3; GSCC COP).

Apart from regular visits to see and speak with D., when considering legislation and good practice, (in line with the UNCRC (Art. 12) and the Children Act 1989 s.17 (4a) and 20 (6) (as amended by the Children Act, 2004 s.53), before making decisions about children, it is necessary to ‘ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings’ and ‘give due consideration to them (having regard to age and understanding)’. I therefore arranged to meet with the children alone, and individually, and gained D.’s consent to visit them at school in order to do this.

(KR 4 Units 12.1; 12.2; KR 6 Unit 19.3; GSCC COP).

Both K. and N. willingly volunteered information when I spoke to them, without the need for me to ask many questions, and both gave very similar descriptions of how they felt about their mother’s partner. These descriptions consisted of how their mother would also hit R. and that R. was not always the instigator and also included their feelings of positivity and closeness towards R. and how they wanted him to be a part of their lives. In this case, this was a major concern of mine as I began to have feelings that both of the children had been primed to give certain responses to my questions. Research has shown that ‘the impact of domestic violence on children increases when...colluding (willingly or otherwise) in the concealment of assaults’ (HM Government, 2010: 263) and I began to feel that there was some form of coercion or persuasion taking place between D. and the children in the minimisation and denial of domestic abuse incidents. Further consideration led me to feel that if this was the case, then future incidents of domestic abuse may not be reported, thereby leaving the children at a higher risk of harm and this was a dilemma which necessitated much discussion with my Practice Teacher and reflection on how best to proceed. Despite these tensions, given K’s age, he was felt to be ‘Fraser competent’ and his wishes and feelings surrounding his mother’s relationship with R. and his desire also to have contact with R. therefore needed to be given due consideration. However, in this case, my purpose was primarily to protect the children from the risk of ‘significant harm’ as defined in the Children Act, 1989 (s.31 (9) and (10) as amended by the Adoption and Children Act, 2002).

(KR 4, Units 12.1; 12.2; 12.3; KR 5 Units 14.2; 14.4; KR 6 Units 18.2; 19.1; 19.4; GSCC COP).

Under the Children Act, 1989, ‘significant harm’ is not well defined and therefore professional judgement and discretion are called upon at all stages of intervention. However, as has been demonstrated here, there is often a ‘…clash between parental and children’s rights’ (Freeman, 2004, cited in Connolly and Ward, 2008:351), as well as a conflict of interests between the child’s wishes and feelings and the child’s best interests. In my work with this family I therefore had to maintain the appropriate balance between human rights and statutory duties and there was an obvious tension in balancing these interests. I had to consider the concept of ‘significant harm’ and use both reflection and supervision in order to consider this concept in relation to the risks that I was presented with.

(KR 4 Unit 12.2; KR 6 Unit 18.2; 19.4; GSCC COP).

‘Harm’, ‘likelihood’ and ‘uncertainty’ are deemed to be the three central concepts when considering risk (Carson and Bain, 2008) and these concepts are summarized by Thompson and Thompson who define risk assessment as:

… a process of identifying the risks involved in a particular situation,

considering how likely it is that particular untoward events will occur…

and their likely or possible impact if they do occur.

(2008: 207).

Given the previous incidents of domestic abuse between D. and R. which were already known to Children’s Services, it was felt that further incidents would be likely and that the impact of such incidents would have a strong, negative impact on the children, leaving them at risk of emotional (and possible physical) harm. This therefore meant that the ‘balance’ in this case should be a recommendation for child protection plans in order to manage risk along with an acknowledgement that D. has a right to choose her own partner and that this right should be respected and given consideration. For this reason, despite not having parental responsibility, R. was included in the process which followed.

(KR4 Units 12.1; 12.2; KR 5 Unit 14.2; KR 6 Unit 19.3; GSCC COP).

As a result of the core assessments, a decision was made to proceed to Initial Child Protection Case Conference (ICPCC) in order to seek safeguarding plans for K. and N. It was at this point that my relationship with D. changed and she began to disengage from working with me, stating that she felt I had not been honest or fair with her and R. Both D. and R. were extremely unhappy with my core assessments and began to focus on the negatives within the assessment and to challenge certain aspects of them. They were both verbally challenging towards me to an extent that it was necessary for me to inform the Independent Reviewing Officer, prior to the Conference, that D. and R. may become angry, upset or abusive during the meeting. On reflection and in discussion with my Practice Teacher, it was felt that their anger was an attempt to deflect from the real issue (which was domestic abuse) and that whoever the worker had been, D. and R. would have been as challenging as they were with me. As this was my first experience of completing core assessments, this was a particularly difficult experience for me and required much reflection for some time following the ICPCC. I began to think about how I could do things differently in order that parents / carers don’t feel that there has been any dishonesty or abuse of power. Despite giving D. and R. an opportunity to comment on the assessments and on the plans, this did not feel adequate and I was left with a feeling of dissatisfaction with my practice.

(KR4 Units 12.1; 13.1; 13.2; 13.3; KR 5 Unit 14.4; KR 6 Unit 19.4)

After much reflection on D.’s comments about the assessment and about how she felt that I had made remarks about issues which were not relevant or pertinent, I began to consider the role of the core assessment document in the assessment of risk, and how this did not feel ‘fit for purpose’ in this sense. The core assessment has been criticised for focusing too specifically on the holistic needs of the child, to the exclusion of risk (eg. Cooper, 2007; Calder, 2003) and therefore I was not alone in my thinking. However, once this had been explained to D. it was then necessary for me to re-focus and, again, much discussion and reflection during supervision assisted with alleviating my feelings of dissatisfaction and helped me to remain child focused and clear about my role and my purpose. Linking in to the children’s human rights (UNCRC Art. 9; Art.19), Connolly and Ward, (2008:352) point out that:

when a child’s human right to personal safety is significantly

compromised by parental maltreatment, the parents’ moral right

to raise the child as they see fit will have to give way because of

laws that place limits on those moral rights.

I therefore had sound justification for the decisions which had been made and was able to present these, both in the form of a written report and verbally, at the ICPCC. Here, a multi-agency decision was made to make the children subject to child protection plans and to monitor risk within the process which followed. Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2006) sets the parameters by which child protection plans are implemented and states the importance of also considering family strengths and forms of resilience which can minimise risks (Howe, 2008).

(KR 5 Units 14.2; 16.2; 17.2; KR 6 Unit 19.1).

The ICPCC has been followed to date with two core group meetings which have been held to discuss and develop the child protection plans in a multi-disciplinary setting. According to May-Chahal and Coleman (2003: 81) ‘…good risk management means reviewing intervention after an agreed period’ and these core groups have been held within statutory timescales. Each of these meetings has involved extensive discussion about family strengths and, indeed, there appears to be much positive progress already made. Both K. and N. have good relationships and friendship groups within school and these have been positive protective factors and sources of resilience for the children.

(KR 4 Unit 12.3; KR 5 Units 14.3; 16.2; 17.1; 17.2; 17.3).

As has been demonstrated here, when working with families and dealing with risky situations, there are a number of tensions, dilemmas and conflicts of interest, and there is a need to balance perceived risk with family and parental autonomy and children’s rights. The way in which this is done will obviously vary from authority to authority, from team to team and between individual practitioners. Despite the current societal ‘culture of fear’, within my specific team, I have found the dominant work culture to be one of positivity and support amidst the current pervasive ‘culture of blame’ (Douglas, 1992) within the Social Work profession. Indeed, I have found no evidence to suggest defensive practice by any individual practitioners for fear of criticism, blame or scapegoating. This has been conducive to a rich learning experience for me personally and one which has allowed me to experience how the blame culture within Social Work on a macro level does not always become internalised within individual organisations. A consequence of this is an ability to work more openly and in partnership with both families and other professionals, with the confidence to challenge the opinions of others whilst at the same time being respectful of them and of their roles. As yet, although it has been possible to evaluate my own practice thus far, (service based outcomes), the end result for this family remains unknown (client based outcomes, Trevithick, 2005).

REFERENCES

Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c.38) London: OPSI

Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications

Calder, M (2003) ‘The Assessment Framework: A Critique and Reformulation.’ in Calder, M and Hackett, S. (eds.) Assessment in Child Care: Using and Developing Frameworks for Practice. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing, pp3-60

Carson, D. and Baine, A. (2008) Professional Risk and Working with People. London: Jessica Kingsley

Children Act 1989 (c.41) London: OPSI

Children Act 2004 (c. 31) London: OPSI

Cleaver, H., Cawson, P., Gorin, S. and Walker, S. (2009) Safeguarding Children: A Shared Responsibility. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell

Connolly, M and Ward, T (2008). Morals, Rights and Practice in the Human Services: Effective and Fair Decision Making in Health, Social Care and Criminal Justice. London: Jessica Kingsley

Cooper, A. (2007) ‘Risk and the Framework for Assessment’. in Calder, M and Hackett, S. (eds.) Assessment in Child Care: Using and Developing Frameworks for Practice. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing, pp100-120

Department for Children, Schools and Families. (1990). UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background. [Online] [Accessed on 12 April 2010]

http://

Douglas, M. (1992) Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London: Routledge

Furedi, F. (2006) Culture of Fear Revisited. 4th ed., London: Continuum

HM Government (2006). Working Together to Safeguard Children: A Guide to Inter-Agency Working to Safeguard and Promote the Welfare of Children. Cmnd. London: TSO

HM Government (2010). Working Together to Safeguard Children: A Guide to Inter-Agency Working to Safeguard and Promote the Welfare of Children. Cmnd. London: TSO

Howe, D. (2008) The Emotionally Intelligent Social Worker. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan

Human Rights Act 1998 (c.42) London: OPSI

Kemshall, H. (2002) Risk, Social Policy and Welfare. Maidenhead: Open University Press

May-Chahal, C. and Coleman, S. (2003) Safeguarding Children and Young People. London: Routledge

Neuberger, J. (2008) ‘Unkind, Risk Averse and Untrusting – if this is Today’s Society, Can we Change it?’ Viewpoint: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. [Online] no date. [Accessed on 15 April 2010]

Thompson, N. and Thompson, S. (2008). The Social Work Companion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Trevithick, P. (2005) Social Work Skills: A Practice Handbook. 2nd ed., Maidenhead: Open University Press.