Recently in family Category

Yvalia Febrer, a senior practitioner in Richmond's children and families team, describes the reactions of her colleagues and friends to the BBC's Protecting Our Children and explains why the high-profile series should leave a lasting legacy for social workers.

After initial anxiety before Protecting Our Children was aired (how would it be received by the public - and by social workers?), I was thrilled to see that it showed such a true picture of child protection. And that so many people tuned in to watch it.

Even before the first episode there was buzz in my office about it; already people were debating whether or not it was a good idea to let the cameras in, especially after what happened in Surrey.

And in a climate where we feel hated by the nation, particularly after Baby P, why would we be welcoming any media attention?

But despite all that, the general feeling once the first episode was over, was good. Better than good in fact. People in my office were relieved viewers were seeing what we actually go through, what we really have to deal with and how powerless we are sometimes.

They felt vindicated and empowered, even if they had issues with some of it - like how realistic it is that team managers come out on visits or security guards follow us around.

Judging by my friends' reaction, they had absolutely no idea what the job was like.

Four family members called me after the first episode to say they hadn't realised how bad it was. I was offered everything from commiseration and admiration, to sympathy and career advice (possibly something safer and better paid?)

People were shocked at some of the 'characters' we have to deal with and baffled when I tried to explain we have to work together with parents, empathise with them and advocate for them.

I think the more complex aspects of protecting children, while also working in partnership with parents, are still lost on the public however. I would welcome another documentary series to delve deeper into the challenges of our job.
 
Overall though, the series gave a good idea of a social worker's day-to-day life and that's something that should have a lasting impact on the nation's view of us.
 
The litmus test, of course, will be when the next tragedy hits the papers. I don't think we've shaken our negative image yet, but we're certainly starting to promote ourselves better, and this series felt like the spearhead of that movement.

Like everything in social work, 'it's a journey'. If nothing else, we as social workers feel more empowered to stand up for ourselves and our profession; for all the good work that's done, all the successes and all the children we help every working day.

• Click here for everything you need to know about Protecting Our Children

by Dr Lucy Rai, senior social work lecturer at the Open University

The final episode of the BBC series Protecting Our Children, I want my baby back, showed three families facing the possibility of separation from their children for very different reasons.

A race against time

In the first case, we saw mum Louise trying to overcome a drug addiction so she could resume care of her baby, Mercedes.

Underlying the work with Louise was the ticking clock of her baby's developmental needs, set against her own timetable of addiction recovery. The priority was to provide Mercedes with a permanent, stable parent figure before she reached an age where changes in carers could forever harm her ability to form secure attachments.

Sadly this left Louise with very little time to achieve some momentous tasks: beating her drug addiction, withdrawing from methadone and completing a residential detox programme. Like Tiffany, the mother in episode one, Louise demonstrated real love for her baby by recognising that she was unable to meet her baby's needs in the time available.

More harsh decisions?

In the second case, we followed a mother who was failing to protect her baby from a known paedophile who shared the care of the child.

Despite clear evidence of the risk to the baby, there was a total lack of cooperation from the mother. Although there was no medical evidence of sexual abuse, the child showed worrying behaviour - such as obvious distress when having his nappy changed and being overly familiar with strangers - which indicated sexual abuse.

We saw the baby being removed by a social worker, with support from the police. This may have seemed dreadfully harsh but it is very unusual, as the team manager explained. Sexual abuse is a difficult area to respond to, and with less clear evidence of immediate risk it is normal to proceed slowly.

Multi-agency support at a time of crisis

The third case followed a mother who needed support to provide a safe, sanitary home so she and her seven-year-old daughter could be reunited.

We saw the intensive resources that can be arranged to help a parent in crisis. We saw social services, housing and environmental health workers working collaboratively to empower the mother to regain control of her home and realise her parenting capabilities.

The level of risk was very different in this case, because the child was older and the mother had been a good parent but was struggling during a personal crisis.

Child development

All three cases showed that social workers need to have a sophisticated understanding of child development. Mercedes needed quick decisions to meet her need for a secure home before she was a year old. The daughter in the 'dirty house' had both physical and emotional needs for a safe and clean home. The risk to the baby boy was heightened by observations about his behaviour - concerning behaviour in such a young child suggested his attachments were not secure and there may have been multiple, inconsistent carers in his life.

Child development plays a significant part in the education of social workers, and this programme exemplified well why this continues to be so important.

• The Open University has put together a range of resources to accompany Protecting our Children: www.open.edu/openlearn/startyourday

Nushra Mansuri, professional officer for the British Association of Social Workers, on why she believes the government's plans for a six-month time limit on care cases are "nonsensical" and likely to set social workers up to fail.

The government's response to the family justice review recognises (on page six) that the current system is "under strain" with substantial increases in case volumes - a 10% increase in public law cases over a 12 month period and a doubling of cases since 2008.

It is therefore incredulous that, in a climate of austerity where the mantra is 'more for less', we are expecting an already overstretched and beleaguered workforce to somehow work miracles in reducing delays in cases. It is nonsensical. But worse than that, this will set practitioners up to fail and will lead to more children being let down rather than protected.

It also seems a million miles away from the Munro report which espouses a learning culture, as opposed to a blame culture, and the removal of arbitrary and unnecessary targets that curtail practice rather than empower it to effect positive change.

This is not good news for the social work profession where people are already working around the clock to do the best job they can in difficult circumstances. Even the chair of the review panel David Norgrove said, in one of the regional seminars, that he recognised things were going to get worse before they get better. That's a powerful statement.

Norgrove also repeated the government's promise of there being no more money in the light of any reviews and we know the current agenda is all about so-called 'efficiencies'. Efficient for who I wonder? I am not aware of children being the beneficiaries of such measures. 

The trend for government consultations is to carry out impact assessments. I would like to know if anyone has sat down and counted the cost of these proposals to some of the most vulnerable children in the country.

Perhaps it is poignant, that this week we celebrated the bi-centenary year of Charles Dickens' birth. If he was alive today, what would one of this country's greatest campaigners for children's rights make of such reforms? Reach for his quill no doubt and offer some social commentary to this sad state of affairs.

Annie Semphill, the social worker seen in Monday's episode of Protecting Our Children, responds to comments and questions from viewers, including those who took part in Community Care's live panel debate.

I couldn't quite bring myself to read all the reaction online as the programme was aired, but I got a good choice selection from my husband throughout the evening.

I feel really honoured by the praise and appreciation shown for our work, but we were really just doing our jobs. I'd like to share some of the warm words that were posted online with all the social workers in Bristol. It was very encouraging, if also a bit embarrassing.

One of the surprising areas of interest was a fascination with the security guards who accompanied me on visits to Shaun and Marva. Because of our long history with the couple I knew Shaun could be unpredictable with a tendency for violence. It did make me feel safe to have two large uniformed men standing behind me as I approached their front door.

I was less worried by the dog as I felt Shaun could keep control of him and wouldn't risk using him in a dangerous way.

Many Community Care readers wondered why I was off sick towards the end of the case, shown in the film, and asked if this was because of the emotional burden the case had on me. I wasn't off due to stress - I had quite a serious virus - but I think the case did exhaust me and made my recovery longer than it might otherwise have been.

I think the film successfully showed the supportive atmosphere in which I was working. Emotional turmoil comes with the territory when you're a social worker but I did feel it more in this case. We'd had such a long involvement with Marva and I really did have some cautious hope for her this time as the experience of dealing with the family had improved enormously.

There was much legal discussion behind the scenes on this case. It might not have been the focus of the programme, but there was a lot of preparation with colleagues to ensure that if we did need to move to care proceedings it could be done smoothly without delays.

The BBC filmed with me, Arthur, Shaun, Marva and all the other supporting colleagues for a good seven months to produce an hour's worth of television. I think it did convey the complexity of the decisions involved and was emotionally sympathetic - both to my profession and Shaun and Marva.

I am heartened to see the number of comments from social work students online who are now further encouraged to qualify.

• The final episode of Protecting Our Children is on Monday Feb 13, BBC2, 9pm. 

Last night's episode of the BBC series Protecting Our Children seemed to provoke an even more positive online reaction than the first - even winning over some of the first film's critics.

In particular, there was huge praise on Twitter and our live debate for the empathetic and calm-headed approach of social worker Annie (pictured) - seen supporting young couple Shaun and Marva during their fourth pregnancy - and her manager Arthur.

There was animated discussion, and some amusement, at the sight of Annie flanked by two burly security guards during home visits. (The security guards, like the social workers, were employed by Bristol Council for all the viewers who asked last night).

There was debate around the role of adult services in child protection cases, to support parents with mental health and substance misuse problems - as we saw last night. And of course there was the all-important question of whether the series will improve the public perception of social work. (Most viewers said they were hopeful but not quite convinced yet.)

Here's a quick round-up of views, thoughts and reflections from the web (more to follow soon):

@VjLupton (via Twitter)
Even more sure I'm doing right by getting my degree after #protectingourchildren amazing people making a difference.

@CathyAshley Family Rights Group (via Twitter)
Very moving #protectingourchildren. Sympathetic portrayal of all involved. Complete respect for social worker & her manager.

@mwilliamsthomas (via Twitter)
Half way through prog- very impressed so far - Annie a credit to the profession @ComCareChildren #protectingourchildren"

@mrspentleton (via Twitter)
#protectingourchildren. Massive respect 2 the SW. Massive respect 2 the foster carer. Everyone should watch this. Pay attention media!

@SteveDonnan (via Twitter)
Social workers get such a bad rap, I think they do an incredibly difficult and dangerous job. Takes great strength #protectingourchildren

@BASW_UK British Association of Social Workers (via Twitter)
Social worker showing great resilience & empathy, lets hope her other 14 cases are not as challenging!

And you can replay our debate from last night here: 

The government has finally published its formal response to David Norgrove's family justice review - and it's not without controversy.

Although it accepts almost all the review's recommendations, Norgrove has already criticised the government's announcement on shared parenting following divorce or separation. (He said don't do it. Ministers look like they might.)

For social workers and children's guardians, the biggest news is probably the confirmation that the government will introduce a statutory six-month limit on care cases by 2013. (But this shouldn't come as a huge surprise given the government's position on this back in November.)

Those I've spoken to have mixed feelings about the deadline. Some feel confident it will speed up decisions and reduce delay (some children wait 55 weeks for their case to be completed), while others are adamant the deadline will only heap more pressure on a struggling system.

One guardian said: "We could see some poor practice if people are just desperately trying to meet deadlines." Nushra Mansuri, professional officer at the British Association of Social Workers, previously told me: "It won't help reduce delay. Most social workers don't have the resources to complete care cases in six months so this could just be setting them up to fail."

Barnardo's chief Anne Marie Carrie said the deadline would reduce delay, but acknowledged the difficulties of meeting it. "We must not underestimate the challenge in achieving this, with record numbers of care applications having been received in the last half of 2011," she said.

Maggie Atkinson, children's commissioner for England, said she recognised the challenge "in ensuring that all essential evidence is placed before the court within this timeframe".

• The government also announced plans to implement the review's recommendation for a co-ordinated family justice system, including a single family court across England and Wales, and a Family Justice Board.
 
• Family courts body Cafcass will move from the Department for Education into the Ministry of Justice by 2015, to "bring court social work functions closer to the court process". And courts will be expected to rely less upon expert evidence - another controversial reform.

by Sacha Mirzoeff, series director of the BBC's documentary series Protecting Our Children

Find out all you need to know about Protecting Our Children and take part in a live chat with experts during the screening.

There are some areas of society where it's said to be impossible to make morally responsible films. Typically the media has chosen to cover social work by going undercover and making investigative programmes. Sadly the end results are often sensationalist films that demonstrate a lack of understanding of the complexity of the work.

And so the bandwagon of poor media coverage of social work trundles on...  

I feel that there is a way of approaching any issue in a documentary as long as there is a clear understanding from all about what is being tackled and how best to do it. 

The director of children's services at Bristol council, Annie Hudson, was open to our approach to show the day-to-day complexities of child protection work. It took months of effort and negotiation to draw up a working protocol that ensured the welfare of children, families and social workers was protected.

We finished with a working protocol, written up by the council's legal department and ratified by the senior family court judge in Bristol. It worked for everyone. On the one hand, it was tougher than the Children Act in terms of identifying children in the public domain during and after proceedings. But on the other hand, it gave the BBC freedom to be able to continue filming during proceedings - as long as everyone was in agreement that it was fine to do so.

Each social worker was given the choice about whether to participate in the series.  Understandably only a small number came forward at first. For those that did, we went through their cases together and discussed the families that might be suitable to approach. Of course even smaller numbers of families agreed to take part. It took months of patient asking before we had enough material to start making the films.

Even with a protocol, how could we at the BBC tell if we were doing the right thing?  We ended up doing the opposite of what many filmmakers strive to do. We rescinded control rather than holding on tight. As many of our contributors are extremely vulnerable, we used a system of rolling consent whereby they, or any of the professionals working with them, could pull out right up until transmission. 

After showing the practically finished films to everyone involved we listened and reacted to their comments. Lawyers, court-appointed guardians, council solicitors, council heads and area managers, our legal advice, editorial policy, our own childcare consultant, the seniors in the BBC and most importantly of all, the families and social workers we filmed, all had their say. It took a long time but we could then rest safe in the knowledge that the end result was balanced, accurate and fair.

• Protecting Our Children is on Monday February 6, BBC2, 9pm. 

As if taking on your first social work case wasn't nerve-wracking enough, imagine doing it in front a BBC film crew and, a year later, having your practice scrutinised by people all over the country. Susanne, the NQSW seen on the BBC's Protecting Our Children, has her say here and reacts to viewers' comments.

"I'm quite relieved that my episode has now gone out.

After many months of filming (you can see the changes in the weather), attending the official BBC screening and doing pre-publicity press interviews, I can now reflect on the experience.

"Most of the commentary I've seen across Twitter, various blogs and the Community Care pages has been positive about what we were trying to achieve with Mike and Tiffany - the couple whose care of three-year-old Toby was in question. 

"It's interesting to see how black and white views have been and that a lot of people are sympathetic to Mike and Tiffany's situation, as well as to what I and my managers were looking to achieve for Toby. 

"I've also seen a lot of commentary from professionals about the various steps and interventions they think should have been attempted with Tiffany in particular.

"While I can't go into detail about their family life, beyond what you see in the programmes, I would like to reassure the social work community that there were many strategies attempted with the family before Tiffany makes her decision about adoption. This did not happen quickly without many opportunities for reflection. As I am on the community team I only take cases that would have seen around three months worth of work from my colleagues in duty.

"There were also several comments about what my caseloads might be. So for those who are still curious, Toby was my first major case, allocated on my second day. During the months I was filmed I was dealing with between 11 and 17 other cases. 

"Now I am looking forward to watching my colleagues in episodes 2 and 3."

Toby is three. He does not talk, he still wears nappies and he has frequent violent tantrums. He lives in a cramped flat in Bristol with parents who love him but are failing to meet even his most basic needs.

Dad Mike is utterly bewildered by fatherhood, yet convinced of his right to parent. Mum Tiffany is loving, but depressed and overwhelmed. Their relationship is volatile. Bruises and two large fingerprint marks have recently appeared on Toby's skin.

So what would you do if you were a newly qualified social worker and this was your first case? That was the unenviable predicament facing Susanne (pictured right) during the first episode of the much-anticipated BBC documentary series Protecting Our Children.

A huge buzz has been building about the series and, as expected, the programme provoked debate and excitement. For a profession dogged by criticism and misunderstanding, this was a rare chance to see a more accurate picture of social work in the national media.

Around 1,000 viewers participated in a live Community Care debate during last night's film, while supportive messages - and inevitably, some less so - flashed up on social media sites.

Here's a round-up of some of your views and reactions:

Dgorky (via CareSpace): "A powerful documentary. It will be the basis for training in child protection. The programme is a reminder of the ethical dilemmas of social work: protecting the vulnerable people like Toby and respecting the the parents' wishes."

BASW_UK (via Twitter): "Well done to Bristol children's services for opening their doors."

@jb_barrister (via Twitter): "My analysis was that it was quite balanced and showed a reality in Britain seldom seen on TV"

@Linda1892 (via Twitter): "Good insight into the dilemmas faced by social workers of ensuring child's needs are met....and the pain for everyone"

@hopeandbelieve (via Twitter): "Love is NOT enough #protectingourchildren such a difficult case for all" 

Natalie Wyatt, social worker (via Community Care debate): "I'm pleased it features neglect - not as 'sensational' as the other forms of abuse, difficult to evidence but a huge part of the job... Excellent to see more experienced staff supporting Bristol's NQSWs."

Yvalia Febrer, social worker (via Community Care debate): "Putting oneself in this child's shoes is very upsetting, but very illuminating."

RP (via Community Care debate): "It was very good to show that Social Workers cannot remove children by themselves."

And if you want to see all the comments from our live debate for yourself - you can replay the whole event using the box below.   

Social workers and family courts will have to complete all care cases in just six months, when a recommendation made by the family justice review is implemented.
 
Publishing his final report on the state of family justice in England and Wales today, review chair David Norgrove said the new limit would reduce "shocking delays" that are leaving children's lives in limbo. 

On average, care cases currently take 13 months to complete, the review found.

"We need to eliminate the shocking delays in the system," Norgrove said. "This is why we are recommending legislation to ensure that child protection cases must not be allowed to take any more than six months, save in exceptional circumstances."
 
The recommendation, which will require legislative change, has already been endorsed by government. A spokesperson said: "We are already taking forward some of the review's recommendations on speeding up care cases and we intend to introduce time limits of six months as part of a package of reforms to tackle delay."

The spokesperson also revealed that, from January 2012, the government will be publishing court-by-court performance tables "so we can see exactly where improvements need to be targeted".
 
But the target is less likely to please social workers, many of whom had hoped the recommendation - first mooted in the review's interim report - would be scrapped. 

Nushra Mansuri, professional officer at the British Association of Social Workers, previously told Community Care: "It won't help to reduce delay. Most social workers don't have the resources to complete care cases in six months so this could just be setting them up to fail."
 
The report - which follows the most comprehensive review of family justice since the 1989 Children Act - proposes a radical re-design of a system under "huge strain".

A new Family Justice Service should be established, sponsored by the Ministry of Justice and commenced by an interim board, the report recommended. Court social work services would form part of this, subsuming the role currently performed by Cafcass.

As expected, the panel issued its controversial recommendation - first included in the interim report - that judges should have their powers of scrutiny limited to core decisions, such as whether a child should be taken into care, rather than the detail of care plans.

Adoption panels should no longer consider whether a child before the court is suitable for adoption. "We believe the court's detailed scrutiny should be sufficient," the report stated. The use of expert reports and expert witnesses should be also be reduced, it recommended. 

Among its other reforms, the review proposed:
•A single family court to replace the current three tiers of court.
•Charges to local authorities for public law applications should be removed.
•In private law, the use of Parenting Agreements and a new 'child arrangements order' to bring together arrangements for children's care after separation. 
•Increased provision of mediation to prevent private law cases going to court unnecessarily.
 
Norgrove said the recommendations, if implemented, would ensure the beleaguered family justice system becomes much more effective.
 
He added: "Every year 500,000 children and adults are involved in the family justice system. They turn to it at times of great stress and conflict. It must deliver the best possible outcome for all children and families who use it, because its decisions directly affect the lives and futures of all those involved, and have repercussions for society as a whole."
 
The government will respond to the panel's recommendations shortly.