Children and families essay[ 7456] PDF

Preview

Summary

In this essay I will be exploring and analysing how recent law and policy effect child protection within social work, such as: Children (Scotland) Act 1995, Children’s hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 and the Getting It Right For Every Child framework. I will also be defining a social workers role withi...

Description

1506467 Children and families essay Word count- 3082 14/05/18 Social Work with Children and Families SS3011 BA (Hons) Social Work 3rd year Dave Humphrey

Children and families essay

Introduction In this essay I will be exploring and analysing how recent law and policy effect child protection within social work, such as: Children (Scotland) Act 1995, Children’s hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 and the Getting It Right For Every Child framework. I will also be defining a social workers role within the children’s hearing system, as well as their essential communication and cooperation with other professionals within the child protection system, in order to carry out effective practice.

Law and social policy “Child protection means protecting a child from child abuse or neglect. Abuse or neglect need not have taken place; it is sufficient for a risk assessment to have identified a likelihood or risk of significant harm from abuse or neglect” (Scottish Government, 2014). The most imperative law that underpins all work carried out with children and families within Social Work is the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Part one of the act defines parental rights and responsibilities. Parental responsibilities include the responsibility to:

“a) safeguard and promote the child’s health, development and welfare (b) to provide, in a manner appropriate to the stage of development of the child; direction and guidance (c) if the child is not living with the parent, to maintain personal relations and direct contact with the child on a regular basis (d) to act as the child’s legal representative “ (Children (Scotland) act 1995). Parental rights include the right to: “a) have the child living with him or otherwise to regulate the child’s residence (b) to control, direct or guide, in a manner appropriate to the stage of development of the child, the child’s upbringing (c) if the child is not living with him, to maintain personal relations and direct contact with the child on a regular basis (d) to act as the child’s legal representative” (Children (Scotland) Act 1995). Part two of the act defines the promotion of children’s welfare by local authorities and at children’s hearings. This part of the act defines the need for children’s welfare and safety to be paramount with all decisions made regarding them (Children (Scotland Act 1995). However, information about the promotion of children’s welfare at children’s

hearings has been replaced by the introduction of the Children’s hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, which came into force in June 2013. The Children’s hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 defines the three overarching principles for any children’s hearing: “Section 25- the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child throughout the child's childhood as the paramount consideration Section 27- (with consideration of the child’s age and maturity level) (a) give the child an opportunity to indicate whether the child wishes to express the child's views (b) if the child wishes to do so, give the child an opportunity to express them (c) have regard to any views expressed by the child Section 28/29- The sheriff may make, vary, continue or extend the order or interim variation or grant the warrant, only if the sheriff considers that it would be better for the child if the order, interim variation or warrant were in force than not” (Children’s hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, on gov.uk). This act also defines reasonable grounds of referral for children’s hearings (section 67), explains what goes on at a pre-hearing panel (section 7982), defines relevant persons (section 200) and identifies all possible outcomes of a hearing (Children hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, on gov.uk).

Part one of the Children (Scotland) act is extremely important to child protection work within social work as it defines the most basic parental rights and responsibilities which help to define whether a child is being appropriately looked after or not (Wilson and James, 2007). As outlined in section a) and b) of parental responsibilities and section b) of parental rights, a social worker can use their knowledge of child development to determine if they believe the child is being looked after properly and at a high enough standard to enable them to reach their developmental milestones- and, if not, then they can use this as a reason for grounds of referral for a children’s hearing. As, under part a of section 67 of the Children’s hearings (Scotland) act 2011, it defines a reason for grounds of referral as: “the child is likely to suffer unnecessarily, or the health or development of the child is likely to be seriously impaired, due to a lack of parental care” (Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011). However, part two of the act is not as useful because it is quite outdated and, as mentioned previously, a lot of the information has been replaced and updated in the Children’s hearings (Scotland) act 2011. The Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 is also highly significant to child protection work within social work as it protects and promotes the right of the child in a children’s hearing (Hothersall, 2014). Through the overarching principles defined in section 25 and 27, it defines the need to keep the welfare of the child paramount at all times when making

decisions about the child and it also gives them the right to express their own thoughts and opinions in consideration of any decisions being madedependant on age and capacity (Children’s hearings (Scotland) Act 2011). The Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 also outlines a social workers role within a children’s hearing. These roles include a duty to carryout ‘investigations’ in relation to the referral made to the children’s hearing system, to ensure that there are appropriate grounds for referral. Also, to complete reports for the reporter and the panel, as well as being present and active at hearings (Munro, 2008). This helps to ensure that effective practice is being carried out and is also helpful for the social worker to know exactly what is expected of them with regards to child protection at a children’s hearing. “The fundamental purpose of social policy is to provide a coherent, consistent and collective response to a range of differing social phenomena.” (Hothersall 2010). Scotland’s aim for their children is to create an existence where every child is given the best possible start in life, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, class or upbringing (Jones, 2002). Every child has the right to have strong self-belief, be able to communicate efficiently, to a worthy education and to be a functioning member of society. This vision is based on the belief that a child will strive and conquer, if given the opportunities and appropriate chance to, from a positive start in life (Daniel et al, 2010). Thus, the introduction of Getting It Right For Every Child

(GIRFEC). GIRFEC first came into play in 2005 and has been updated and amended right up to this current day. Focusing on this vision for Scotland, GIRFEC identified the well being indicators that every professional and practitioner who works directly with a child, can use to measure care and wellbeing, and identify any concerns (GIRFEC, 2005). The well being indicators are: Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Responsible, Respected and Included. This concept helps to ensure the appropriate provision and implementation of help and support for children in Scotland who sincerely need it. GIRFEC is absolutely critical to child protection work within social work as it sets a base for every agency within and out with social work, to work from, to help them to efficiently identify any child protection concerns. Social work practitioners in children’s services’ main role is to protect. So, similarly to the overarching principles outlined in the Children’s hearings (Scotland) act 2011, these practitioners can use the wellbeing indicators defined in GIRFEC, along with their own knowledge and theory to practice, to identify any doubt in relation to child protection (Munro, 2007). It is not just GIRFEC that impacts on child protection work within social work, but actually any law, policy or framework put in place by the government. The UK government grants its citizens the right to a private family life, within article 8 of the Human Right’s Act 1998, therefore, social workers must have reason grounds to believe that a child is, or, will be, put in danger/risk of harm, if they do not intervene and arguably go against what is a basic human right (Ferguson, 2004). More specifically,

in Scotland, government ideas and ideals for policies relating to child protection are built from a culturally specific approach, focused on means tested benefits and limited funding, resulting in universal services, such as social work becoming underfunded and unfocused. Therefore, the lack of funding has a direct impact on the type of services and the efficiency of services that social work can provide within child protection (Cooper, 2009). However, criticism of GIRFEC lies within its effectiveness on improving children’s lives in Scotland. Save the Children found that still more than a quarter of Scotland’s children and young people live in poverty (Save the children, 2018). It is proven that child who experience poverty early on in their lives are twice are likely to struggle with their education in the future. Now Scotland’s government highlights within their vision, a child’s right to a worthy education, however, save the children also found that poverty makes it more challenging for children to achieve their full potential within education, due to the lack of basic knowledge and support necessary (Save the children, 2018). Sadly, having such a barrier so early on in their life will only continue to disadvantage them as life goes on. So, there must be a flaw in the planning and implementation of GIRFEC if they are failing to meet the desired basic rights for children. Or could it may be, once again, a fault of finance. Although, it can be argued that the state protection of children aims to concentrate on families who are the most in need of it, the failure to protect and provide for these families can once again be blamed on poor funding and resources (Jones, 2002).

Inter-agency working and the social work role “Child protection is a complex system requiring the interaction of services, the public, children and families. For the system to work effectively, it is essential that everyone understands the contribution they can make and how those contributions work together to provide the best outcomes for children” (Scottish Government, 2014). As mentioned previously, a social worker has many roles within a children’s hearing, one of which is to complete a report for the children’s reporter and the panel at the hearing. This is the first piece of information that a reporter will receive, in order to help them make their decision as to whether a hearing needs to be held (Gillingham and Humphreys, 2010). In the report, the social worker must include: facts about the child and family situation- here, they must mention anything that has happened to the child in terms of child protection but must refrain from including concerns as to what they ‘think’ might happen if action is not taken. They also must refrain from including their own personal opinion on the parents/primary caregivers and how they’re attitude or demeaner has been towards the social worker. The report must not include any assumptions made by the social worker and if they are stating anything then it should be backed up by fact and come from a reliable source. The report is essentially a chronology of the child’s life, including dates, evidence and any information that the social worker feels should be addressed within the hearing (Gillingham and Humphreys, 2010).

It is important that the social worker writes a thorough report as the reporter will use this as a basis to form a referral for the hearing (referrals can also come from education and police, as well as social work). Present at the hearing are: the panel members (members of the local community who have undergone training), the reporter, the child themselves (unless they are excused, but otherwise it is their right to attend), the parents of the child along with any other relevant persons (in some cases they can be excluded, however), a legal representative for the child or parent and a safeguarder (Munro, 2011). Legally, no one else is allowed to attend a children’s hearing unless the chair considers that their attendance and participation essential for the proper consideration of the grounds of referral (for example, the family social worker, the child’s health visitor or the child’s school teacher) or if they are obliged under the procedural rule. Whilst social work holds a huge role in the writing of a report for a children’s hearing, it is every professional who comes into contact with that child’s responsibility to safeguard and protect them from significant harm (Munro, 2011). Significant harm is defined as: “Harm of a not minor, transient or superficial nature. It may be physical or emotional and will include developmental harm” (Norrie 1995). The average child will have contact with health and education, as these are premises that they are entitled too. However, some other children

may also have contact with social work and the police, due to family or personal reasons. No matter which professionals a child comes into contact with, each professional alone can not create a full picture of that child’s situation and if their needs are being met efficiently. For child to receive early intervention at the right time then it is every professional’s responsibility to identify any apprehensions they may have about that child’s upbringing and follow through with action regarding this concern (Gillingham and Humphreys, 2010). Any professional with a concern about a child’s wellbeing and welfare is to place a referral to a children’s social work department or to a local authority service to ensure the right person is aware of the concerns. This involves effective communication and mutual respect among all professionals involved. (Gillingham and Humphreys, 2010). To achieve effective communication and collaboration, it is essential that every professional working with that family or child is aware what everyone’s role is in the process, especially their own. For example, for a children’s hearing, it usually police, social work or health professionals who make the referral. A forensic psychologist would then carry out an ‘interview’ with the child. “The investigative interview is a formal, planned interview with a child, carried out by staff trained and competent to conduct it, for the purposes of eliciting the child’s account of events (if any) which require investigation” (Scottish Government 2011).

The forensic psychologist would use the information collected from the referral to question the child on their life, in order to gather more information and facts; this would also be a time for the psychologist to note down the child’s behaviour and language skills as a judgement of their development. Then, if necessary, a medical examination would be carried out by a paediatrician. This would be to collect any evidence for hearings and to also treat any injuries immediately (Gillingham and Humphreys, 2010). As you can imagine, although you will not want to, this process is not very pleasant and is extremely distressing for the child, so it might be appropriate to have a social worker present during the examination, as a means of support and comfort for the child. This is just a small example of the importance of interprofessional working within children and families social work. However, consideration must also be given to the relationship between the organisations rather than the professionals themselves, for example, looking at local authority children and family services, rather than the social worker. When looking at this you begin to see the diverse values, principles and working practices within each organisation (Whittington, 2003). There is no longer a desire for inter-agency working, but instead, there is a need. For example, in caring services, the needs of service users, as well as carers, is so high that it requires different types of help that can only be accessed through different agencies (for example, health and

social care). This ties in with interprofessional working, as both professionals must collaborate efficiently for the successful provision of care (Whittington, 2003). Also, there have been recent changes to the organisation and structure of services, involving the creation of new departments. This means that sometimes different professionals might be sited in one greater administration together, such as a local authority. Therefore, cooperation will be subject to effective partnership and joint working by professionals. Although this allows for easier communication and better integration, there are still boundaries to be crossed. (Meads, 2005). It is also a good way to ensure a certain standard of care; collaboration among agencies has been encouraged since the 1960’s, however, recent government legislation and policy shows a strong desire for inter-agency working, in order to provide effective service. Case reviews has highlighted ineffective care to service users, caused by the failure of communication and cooperation among agencies and professionals, which flagged up the need for effective collaboration. Also, service users will have an expectation of the professionals that they come into contact with, to work well together for the sake of their wellbeing (Meads, 2005). Although it is definitely necessary in the provision for effective practice, it is not always easy. For example, there can be conflict between professionals about confidentiality and the need for sharing information; which can make it difficult to agencies to make certain decisions. This is

evidence that it takes a lot of time and commitment from all professionals involved and is not a process that cannot happen overnight (Whittington, 2003). Understandably, there can be differences in points of view and opinions between professionals which can cause disagreements about the correct type of care for a service user. However, a decision must be made by all professionals, as according to Whittington (2007), poorly collaborated inter-agency working can restrain options available to service users, restrict availability of services and increase the level of risk. Therefore, positive inter agency and interprofessional working is an essential for social work practice.

Conclusion Overall, I have evidenced the strong importance of the Children’s hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, as well as the GIRFEC national wellbeing indicators, for assisting social workers in the part that they have within child protection. This legislation and policy underpins the basic work that they do with children and is at the forefront of most of the decisions that they have to make. I have also evidenced social workers role within the group of professionals that work with children and families and have stressed the necessity for communication and cooperation among all professionals in order to successful safeguard a child.

References Law and Policy Children (Scotland) Act 1995, accessed at gov.uk (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/36/contents) Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, accessed at gov.uk (www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2011/1/contents) Getting It Right For Every Child- National indicators, accessed at gov.scot (http://www.gov.scot/Topics/People/Young-People/gettingitright) Human Rights Act 1998, accessed at gov.scot.uk (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents) Save the Children (2018), accessed at www.savethechildren.org.uk/whatwe-do/uk-work/Scotland) Scottish government, 2014. National Guidelines for Child Protection in Scotland, accessed at gov.scot (http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2014/05/3052) Books DANIEL, B., WASSELL, S., GILLIGAN, R., 2010. Child development for child care and protection workers. 2nd edition. Jessica Kin...