News

There is only so much time social work teams can give to parents who show little interest in bringing up their children. Mike George talks to senior social worker Joanna Davis, pictured left, about the case of a young mother with a chaotic lifestyle who was unwilling to offer her children stability.

In the rush of everyday work and substantial case loads, it is sometimes easy to forget just how much responsibility for other people's lives social workers and other social care staff hold.

Although there are far-reaching consequences associated with social work carried out in many service areas, in child protection work the level of responsibility is particularly high. This was certainly the experience of Joanna Davis during her work with Tina Williams (not her real name) and her children. Davis, a senior social worker in a children and families team, has been a key figure in deciding the family's future.

Williams is 20. Much of her earlier life was spent in local authority care as a result of severe emotional neglect. She had her first child three years ago and there were concerns about her ability to parent the child. The concerns, which continued through subsequent years, were caused by her various partners' tendencies to abuse drugs and offend, by her own drug use, and a lifestyle which put her own social life before that of her role as a parent.

It was evident from an assessment that she had potentially good parenting abilities. Nevertheless, care proceedings had to be initiated and a care order was made. This enabled her to live independently with her child, though with support. Shortly afterwards, she became pregnant again. But concerns were heightened as her lifestyle became increasingly unstable: her new partner was a drug abuser, and she had lost a number of tenancies and had become involved in prostitution.

Because of this, care proceedings were initiated for the second child, at which point Davis became directly involved. "An interim care order had been made, and we had proposed a care plan which would require both children to be placed with foster carers, while at the same time their mother would receive another assessment, and have regular, supervised contact with her children," she explains.

Suitable foster carers were found and the two children were placed. Meanwhile, Davis started to meet regularly with Williams. "I found her bright, very engaging," she says. "From talking to her and seeing her with the children it was clear she had very genuine feelings for them, and had good potential parenting abilities."

Then Williams revealed she was pregnant again. Her supervised contact with the two children, which had been proceeding well, and with real attachment growing between them, began to break down, says Davis: "Her visits started to be inconsistent, as she became increasingly caught up with a group involved in petty offending and prostitution. We became highly concerned about the welfare and future of the unborn child."

Davis was faced with a number of dilemmas. Was there any way in which Williams could be persuaded to use her evident skills, and genuine feelings, to parent adequately? Could anything be done to protect her from this group, as she herself was vulnerable and had low self-esteem? Would it be safer to remove the new baby from her as soon as it was born? If so, could the baby be placed to allow contact with Williams, and/or its siblings?

Davis said: "We considered whether there was any way the mother and baby could live together safely, but with support. For example, could she live with a family, but remain a care giver? Should we seek a foster placement for her and the baby, or would it be better for the baby to be placed with its siblings and to try again to get Williams to maintain close contact with them? Also, there was a need to keep the siblings together, and a need to avoid any further delay in securing the children's future."

She talked all this through with Williams, who was initially very co-operative and wished to care for the baby, but shortly before it was born she withdrew all co-operation, probably under the influence of her friends. "We had no option but to seek an interim care order as soon as the baby was born. The baby was placed with its siblings in foster care, though again regular contact with their mother was allowed. The care plan included initiating adoption proceedings as well as offering her counselling, which she failed to take advantage of. Again, her contact with the children became erratic."

The local authority had little option but to apply for a freeing application for all three children, and to plan adoption. "It's very sad," said Davis. "I tried everything I could to encourage her, to balance the interests of everyone involved, but in the end, of course, the children's safety had to come first."

Case notes

Practitioner: Joanna Davis

Field: Senior social worker in a children and families team

Location: Kingston Upon Hull

Client: Tina Williams (not her real name), aged 20, had been in care because of emotional neglect. She has no permanent partner and her lifestyle is unstable.

Case history: On the birth of her first child a care order was obtained, and she was given support in parenting skills. By the birth of her second child, worries about her lifestyle and choice of partners and friends led to increased concerns for the children: an interim care order was sought for the second child, with a plan to place the children in foster care, with parental contact. As Davis and her colleagues were about to go to court, Williams became pregnant again. The two children were placed in foster care. At first Williams saw them regularly, but then began mixing with drug users and petty offenders and failed to keep contact, so there were worries for the baby. Davis encouraged Williams to parent her children adequately, but a care order had to be obtained for the baby.

Dilemma: Williams had some parenting skills and clearly loved the children, but seemed unwilling to change her lifestyle.

Risk factor: The children would be at significant risk if they stayed with their mother; the older children already showed signs of insecure attachment.

Outcome: All three children were placed together for adoption.

Arguments for risk

- Williams had demonstrated she had good potential parenting skills, and was clearly able to form attachments with the children.

- For much of the time she was able to work co-operatively with Davis, to form a trusting relationship with her, and was able to understand how her actions impacted on the well-being and safety of the children.

- She was young and vulnerable herself, and if she had been able to accept help to address the emotional issues associated with her earlier life, she could have become a good parent.

- Similarly, if there had been any support from her own family, she may have been able to be a parent.

- Because of medical complications she has been sterilised and cannot have any more children.

Arguments against risk

- Williams has been offered counselling and other forms of help throughout, as well as Davis's support, but has not taken advantage of it.

- She has maintained her inappropriate lifestyle and choice of friends despite being aware of the consequences for her and her children.

l The foster carers have been supportive and allowed Williams as much contact as she has desired, but she appears to have had little appreciation of their care for her children.

- She contested the interim care order and its associated care plan for her third child, but has not taken any other steps to regain full parental responsibility for her children.

- It could be argued that she still needs to obtain recompense for her own past emotional losses, and that she is unable to take on a parenting role.

- Her increasing involvement with drug abuse, drug abusers and prostitution represents a substantial risk to her children, regardless of her parenting skills.

Independent comment

This case appears to have used all available resources to enable Tina to look after her children, and highlights the stresses of caring for more than one child when a parent has limited emotional resources because of her own childhood experiences.

Young parents like Tina may change their behaviour over time, but children can only wait for a limited period for the stability and security they need. Tina appears to lack any informal support, and is therefore more vulnerable to relationships and behaviours that are incompatible with meeting the responsibilities of parenting.

The only obvious way forward would be if a family member was available to look after the children, either permanently or until Tina was able to take over the care. However, contact might be problematic as the children are already showing signs of insecure attachment and this could become worse if Tina's contact was erratic.

It would appear that Tina has not fully considered the long-term implications, not only of not having her children, but also of not being able to have any more children. Often when young women no longer have the care of their children they also lose a range of professional support and eligibility for housing. Tina is likely to be more vulnerable if the adoption goes ahead and will need a range of support.

This case is very sad, particularly as Tina showed the potential to parent her first child, and displayed emotional warmth towards the children. It is commendable that the professionals involved have been able to ensure that the three children have been placed together, and offered continued encouragement to Tina.

Benny McDaniel is project leader at Barnardo's Parents and Children Together project, Northern Ireland.