News

CASE NOTES

Practitioner: Marl‚ Slabbert, senior practitioner.  Field: Children and families.  Location: Reading, Berkshire.  Client: Sandra Stokes has 10 children aged between three and 17, all of whom are living with her and her long-term partner.

CASE HISTORY: Sandra had suffered abuse and severe neglect as a child and had been, for the most part, brought up in care. She didn't really have any contact with her siblings except for one brother, Garry, about whom there were concerns that he might have sexually abused another of the siblings. Nonetheless, he was supportive of Sandra. Because of her background, Sandra found it very difficult to work with or trust professionals - either in education or social services. She believed they were manipulative and were not interested in what the client wanted.

Dilemma: With so many children, any parent might be in need of some support, but Stokes's antagonism towards social services and education professionals put any potential support in jeopardy, which - somewhat ironically - might have led to more drastic action being taken.

Risk factor: By taking time to build up a relationship rather than seeking to immediately address the concerns of all four schools involved about the behavioural difficulties of the children and Stokes's parenting, there was a risk that Stokes would be overwhelmed.

Outcome: The case is closed - the family is still together and enjoys a productive relationship with the few support services it needs.

There can be little doubt that we are, as Shakespeare suggested in Troilus and Cressida, "made and moulded of things past". Our experiences help to shape our futures.

It is then unsurprising that unloved and neglected children often want to have their own families in order to provide them with all the love, affection and attention that they did not receive themselves. Sometimes this can mean having children very young. Sometimes this can mean having lots of children.

Sandra Stokes, now 35, was an unloved child. Taken into care after being severely neglected, she was made safe but remained far from happy. She was split from her siblings and, as with many who experience the care system, she built up a dislike and mistrust of authority figures.

To reclaim her life Sandra started her family. Over the next 15 years she would have 10 children. Ten lives had helped recreate one. However, 18 months ago it all seemed to be falling apart.

"We became involved last summer following concerns raised by the education welfare officers from the various schools that the children attended," says senior practitioner, Marl' Slabbert. "Partly because of her uncomfortable relationship with officialdom, Sandra would not work with the schools. She would be given appointments and she wouldn't turn up. She would speak over the phone but the minute she felt she was not getting the support she needed she would become verbally aggressive."

The oldest two girls - Amy, 16 and Sonia, 15 - had been victims of bullying, but particularly Sonia. It resulted in them moving to another school, but the bullying continued. "Amy was protective of Sonia and if she was in trouble Amy would step in and physically defend her. The school excluded the children from school," says Slabbert.

She continues: "At the same time, we received a referral from the primary school about two other children - Megan, 11 and Vicky, nine. The school, in particular, felt that Sandra wasn't responding properly to health issues with Vicky, who had bowel problems. But again nobody had a face-to-face conversation with mum."

Naturally a flow of unconnected referrals about the same family began ringing alarm bells. However, Slabbert didn't panic and rush decisions. "When you get a large family and look holistically at all the problems you can pick out all the issues. But what we did here was to try and clarify where the difficulties lay, especially taking into account mum's very negative experiences, which were all on file. We needed to find a way to work with Sandra to make sure that she got the support she needed.

"We looked at the issues with each child to see which of these were possibly related to things at home. In the end we couldn't find anything that related to mum's care of the children being the cause of the problems," she says.

Slabbert's initial contact left Sandra "quite upset". But Sandra quickly recovered from this shock. "We said that we need to talk to you but we want to do it on your terms because we are aware of the difficulties you have had in the past. And we understand how large families work."

Sandra arranged a meeting. "We sat down with her and went through the list of concerns. She had no idea these existed because nobody had told her before. However, she was prepared to try the suggestions we made. I think she agreed because rather than saying 'We have to do this', we gave her the opportunity to feel in control of the situation."

From that day the relationship grew. Indeed, if Sandra encountered a difficulty and was unsure whether she acted appropriately she would call social services. "She would say, 'I need some advice: this is what I have done - is there anything else I need to do?'," says Slabbert.

The case was closed without Slabbert ever having to consider calling a child protection conference. "This was based on our relationship and her being prepared to co-operate with us. And the same thing started happening with the schools as well - she started to have conversations with them and accepting the advice and help they were giving. All around it had a knock-on effect. It was a really different way of working with someone and gave us a real success story in the end," she says.

ARGUMENTS FOR RISK

• By understanding Sandra's background and experiences, and that the family was typical of the way in which bigger families function, the social work team were able to scratch beneath the surface of a spate of referrals that otherwise might have sparked emergency decision-making.
• Confident that the difficulties being faced by the family were more down to misunderstanding than risky or poor parenting, Slabbert could afford to allow Sandra time and space to feel in control of the social work intervention.  This encouraged Sandra to engage meaningfully with social services for the first time.
• Social services'  trust in Sandra was repaid. "She said 'If you ever want to see the children feel free to come around - just give me a call'.  This would never have happened if we had just jumped in and said we have all these concerns that we need to act on immediately," says Slabbert.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST RISK

• People who have awful experiences stored away in their emotional lockers often try very hard to ensure that their own children do not experience the same. However, it is not unusual for them to fail in this only for the cycle of abuse to continue - often unknowingly. Any parent with 10 children would need support but Sandra Stokes was not approachable or willing to accept help. Such a blanket attitude, regardless of any understanding of where that attitude has been rooted, potentially places her children at risk.
• With the acknowledged rise in blame and litigation aimed at social workers, it is unsurprising that many staff and departments act very defensively - making sure that their backs are covered. It is therefore surprising to find workers - who have received four separate referrals - taking such a route to what fortunately resulted in a positive outcome. It could have been very different.

Independent Comment

Faced with a history like Sandra's and a barrage of referrals from partner agencies, it would have been all too easy for Marl‚ Slabbert to rush to judgement in this case, initiating precisely the kind of heavy-handed intervention least likely to prove successful, writes Patrick Ayre.   However, she allowed herself the time not only to analyse the underlying problems but also to perceive the situation from Sandra's position. This allowed her to work out her own objectives and to chart the most effective way to reach them.  The pressures inherent in the child protection system can sometimes lead us to prioritise assertiveness over empathy, and intervention over understanding. The system, after all, had its origins in the need to respond swiftly and effectively to instances of "acute" abuse such as severe physical harm or sexual abuse and it has been slow to adapt to the demands of "chronic" forms of harm such as neglect and emotional abuse which require a more holistic approach much less focused on incidents. Fortunately for Sandra, Slabbert has the skills required to pursue a more systemic approach to case planning.  My own research on the assessment of significant harm suggests strongly that social workers regard being "unco-operative" as a particularly negative characteristic in parents. However, it also suggests that effective co-operation is not a one-way street and requires each side to engage with the other.

Patrick Ayre is senior lecturer at the University of Luton and an independent child welfare consultant.