Thoughts welcome, and perhaps best practice shared: especially for those for you working in a Referral and Assessment role in Children's Services.

 Have you ever encountered the habit of some managers of responding to P78s / Merlins, by writing a letter to families i.e. in response to a first, but serious incident of domestic violence, with something along the lines of "we're sorry to hear this happened; this is the number for Women's Aid, if we have any further such notification we'll commence an Initial Assessment " etc.

I'm sure I'm not the only reader to find this dangerous and unethical, and am delighted in my new role in a new LA I have managed to get it written into procedures that we DON'T write letters to (largely) women in this situation;

why;

1) The police should rountinely be informing women about sources of support in relation to domestic violence

2) There is no evidence at all suggesting that anyone is likely to seek help on the basis of an unsolicited letter from social services. It's likely to be perceived as threatening 

 3) It is likely to be dangerous in discouraging mother from phoning 999 again as she now thinks that this will lead to her children being removed

4) We don't know who opens the mail in that household; victim might be assaulted for "bringing in social services"

 5) Phoning mother to offer support, investigate the situation is much more useful

6) Basically, it's the worse, "back-covering" form of social work around. Change it; it ain't social work at all.

 7) It's completely unethical and unhelpful to use the CP process as a threat anyway; a dangerous and macho attitude (though practised as much by women as men!). CP is about safeguarding vulnerable children, not threatening their parents.

 Anyway - a small (or maybe not that small) battle won....would be grateful for thoughts from other practitioners....is this idiotic practice confined to London...does anyone actually think it's a good idea....

 cheers,

No it is not a good idea but you raise the 'wider' issue of how Social Services / Social Work Departments should best respond to referrals of Domestic Violence. The 'threshold' for even Care Proceedings is met if children hear or witness Domestic Abuse so we HAVE to take it extremely seriously knowing also the long-term emotional effects if can have on children and young people.

You are right about the responsibilities of the Police but most occurrences are attended by uniformed Officers who then submit reports to their DV Units who then share them with Social Services where there are children involved. Uniformed Officers are not always good at either obtaining full information or knowing about / giving information of Support Services.

Certainly sending letters is potentially dangerous and counter-productive but can we visit every time? Also if telephoning to speak with the vistim we need to ensure that our telephone numbers are witheld - perpetrators dialling 1471 to find out that it was a call from Social Services can just cause more trouble.

It would be good to hear examples of best practice.

Phoning is the best response in my View, except in cases which clearly need a Visit. One problem is - quite understandably - lots of Victims of domestic Violence - and loads of other people too ! - won't answered withheld numbers. Best response, call your LA switchboard and ask them to connect. Normally the call is then traceable to the council, doesn't show up as withheld, but can't be traced to social serVices directly either. Or use your work mobile, but then make sure this is switched off outside of work times.

I called a DV Victim the other day, and a male answered. As a male worker especially, just refusing to say who I was could also leaVe the person at risk "who's that guy phoning etc". My normal line is to say "I'm calling from the Council " not not proViding further details, on this occasion I said "it's just a surVey about mobile telecommunications sir, sorry to haVe bothered you" - which is obViously a lie - but creatiVe and justified in this instance I feel. 

Thoughts?

eastend11:

I called a DV Victim the other day, and a male answered. As a male worker especially, just refusing to say who I was could also leaVe the person at risk "who's that guy phoning etc". My normal line is to say "I'm calling from the Council " not not proViding further details, on this occasion I said "it's just a surVey about mobile telecommunications sir, sorry to haVe bothered you" - which is obViously a lie - but creatiVe and justified in this instance I feel. 

 

Thoughts?

 Hi eastend11,

I read your inital comments with interest and I think you made some good points. However, I'm afraid the only thing I can agree with in the above comment is that your response was a lie, but it was neither creative nor justified and if your local authority supports this approach then I'm frankly appalled. I'm sure you have the best intentions with your approach but can I suggest that you clarify with the GSCC whether this approach is ethical, especially as honesty is a fundamental principle of the codes of practice.

'Grinch' is correct in the response to 'eastend11' - such a response by the latter illustrates just what happens when there are no clear Policies and Guidelines in place. I would welcome details of examples of good practice in this area.

 "Grinch"

 interested that you are more interested in attacking me than in  contributing to any debate or discussion; nor do you say why it's a particularly bad thing. Do you work in children's social care. I would be interested if you would care to explain your objection in greater detail. Mayb you have a point, but please speall it out. At the moment it's just personally offensive which is a pity. I'll set out my argument in more detail, and if you're genuinely interested in the discussion I'm sure you'll respond in kind.

 Scenario: a phone call to a female service user is needed- ; it's clear that making a phone call, rather than a home  visit or writing a letter is the best approach.

Unless you're startingly naive you will be aware that there is - sadly - a small but not totally insignificant chance that this will result in mother being assaulted. This is a pretty sobering and real fact in our work involving calculated risk taking. The risk is less than non-intervention. 

 According to your rather sanctiminous logic it would be fine for me to say "I can't say why I'm calling, it's an entirely private matter" - which could risk provoking the partner in the home context -and no I don't believe in facilitating violent men but in challenging them in an appropriate and managed context. If she has a jealous, obsessive partner, then the outcome isn't hard to guess. 

Or I could just leave my name and number. Not hard to find out what I do. 

 Or I could say "Yeah, I'm a social worker. I'm calling about the report regarding domestic violence from the Police" .

 All of these would be obviously stupid.

 It's not a breach of the Code of Conduct (I suspect you would benefit from reading this"Grinch" ) as the male concerned was not the service user.)"

It's no more dishonest that a foster carer saying she's a child's "auntie" to a kindly old lady in a shop asking about her relationship to the child - rather that the "honest" answer "actually he's been removed from parental care by social services"  .

 Therefore, the "telesales" call is, in my view entirely justified. I later spoke to the mother. The man who answered the phone was a work colleague when they were out on a job. She specifically thanked me for taking this approach.

On a fairly utilitarian approach anyway, what was the harm - or potential harm - caused by telling someone I was a telesales caller?

 Rupert: do we really need quidelines on maing phone calls in this situation. Or doesn't a little bit of considered judgement not go amiss.

Would be grateful for further thoughts on both the original and the more contentious point challenged by Grinch and Rupert.

And Grinch, I'm not infalliable - so pls suggest a) why my chosen approach was so wrong b) what you would have done instead. I guess stopping male workers from taking on DV case would be one approach, but in my view would again help nobody.

 i want to support eastend 11. as someone who oncesuffered from DV to have someone phone especially a man and not say who they are would have resulted in a jealous beating, to have a soxcial worker phone would also have resulted in a beating a call from the council would probaly not. 

i understand the importance of honesty but surely not to the detriment of someones safety.  maybe rupert is right that clearer policies would be helpful but there cannot be rules and regulations for every part of our daiily work and nor would i like to work like this i would feel very uncomfortable if i thought i as a social worker was adding to womens beatings.

'eastend11' - your response to 'Grinch' was even more personal that 'Grinch's to yourself. I think that emotions are getting in the way of trying to take this issue forward.

As the majority of 'referrals' are from the Police then it would be far easier if they made the alleged perpetrator aware from the outset that they would be informing Social Services who MAY either visit (with or without the Police) , write or 'phone.

 As I have previously stated Domestic Violence if seen or heard by children is a possible ground for Care Proceedings even - we need to be able to work as openly and honestly as with other forms of Child Abuse.

 Let me first state that I believe Domestic Violence should not be grounds for care proceedings, that perpentrator of the violence should be removed from the home and the remaining family relocated , if necessary,  with support for the victims, which is where the guidelines have gone wrong in the first instance, 99.9 % of victims would gladly kick their partners/ husbands/ whatever's to the kerb if they could be sure they would get the help to keep him away from the family, most women (with children) would gladly take the beating if this keep's the perpentrator away from the children, but while the courts and cafcass are only too happy to hand the children back to the perpentrator for 'contact' or even residence it is much easier for the woman to take the beating and protect her children than to risk them being taken into care by bringing a case against him, or for the children to be handed over for contact where she is not permitted to protect them by law, we have all seen how this ends with the amount of children dying at the hands of their fathers over recent years as 'punishment' for the wife leaving.

There in lies the problem, most people who write or use the guidelines have no idea what it's like to be inside the mind of either the perpentrator or the victim, they speak of stockholm syndrome but blame the victim for failure to protect, you can't have it both ways.

 As for eastend11, you did the right thing and I commend you for it, I have seen too many women who have been battered for little more than a wrong number. You obviously possess the common sense needed in the job and have thought long and hard before putting the victims in yet more danger.

 It's all very well and good saying you have the interests of the children in mind when the contact made with the victim results in the children witnessing yet more violence against the mother and or children as these letters are sure to do.

 As for the care proceedings, the concept is to keep families together,  working with the other agencies to keep the perpentrator away from this victims would be more productive in the long run for the family than starting care proceedings, i'm not quite sure when common sense went out the window but I wished more people would apply it like eastend11 obviously has.

 In my experience (two years working in a women's refuge) women who want to escape their violent partners are given lots of support to do so. If necessary they are helped to relocate This is obviously very hard on the woman and any children she may have as they often have to leave behind family and friends. However if this is the best option and the woman agrees to it I have never known a case where it was not possible. I saw many women successfully leave the refuge to be rehomed having slowly begun to rebuild their lives. Unfortunately some return to their partners many times before they reach a point when they can't take any more. This is always the woman's choice. However, to take children back into a situation where thet are witnessing their mother being beaten, or hearing the violence is tantamount to abuse.

I must also say that if a women is willing to remove herself and the children from the situation, or the perpetrator is removed then there is no cause to place the children in care, and I certainly never saw this happen.

eastend11,

Okay, mea culpa(ish), I've re-read my original post and perhaps it was a bit on the blunt side. I could have clarified my concerns in a bit more detail and so accept my apologies for any stress caused, I think I can see why your response was somewhat heated.  However, having said that, I certainly don't think my comment warranted quite so much condescension or sarcasm on your part…

So, to clarify my concerns, on one level it does seem that ‘considered judgement’ - or common sense as Schroders Cat terms it - tells us that you did the right thing for all the right reasons, i.e., you maintained your anonymity to protect someone from possible repercussions from a violent partner. However, on another level, common sense also tells us that you should never have knowingly been put in a situation where you either felt compelled to or had to lie to someone, even if it was for the best of intentions. My argument isn’t so much that you did the ‘wrong’ thing under the circumstances, only that the circumstances were avoidable and therefore should have been avoided.

I accept that I could be wrong but I honestly think that you’re on a very sticky wicket with part of your current approach as it raises - I think - serious questions about professional integrity and that could be harmful to both you and your organisation. My comment about contacting the GSCC was actually meant to be helpful, I really do think it would be a good idea to share the scenario you’ve posted with them (or perhaps with BASW?) to see if they would support your approach. I'd certainly be interested in their response.

So, just to reiterate, I like much of what you had to say in your original post and I don’t question your intentions, only a part of your approach to finding a solution.

In terms of an alternative approach, in my own authority - and I’m not saying we’ve got it right - there is an expectation that all police officers who attend a domestic dispute where children are present have to inform children’s social care BUT they also have to inform the family that they intend to do so. Therefore, in theory at least, any time in the future when social care need to contact the family to discuss concerns - usually by letter in the first instance - this should not come as a surprise. Also, officers can refer to their own DV unit who have specialist police officers who routinely visit, advise, and support families where DV has been identified, much as Rupert has suggested.

 Thanks for that Grinch :-) cordial is better both ways

And thanks everyone else for the kind words, nice to hear. 

 I'll keep the debate going as, on this quite small forum, it's attracted quite a few response and I think it's an indication of interset in this vital issue so just perhaps my musing are of some use!

 I wonder if one of the community care editors fancies copying the pasting the whole lot to the GSSC to see what they think?

BUT I'll stick to my guns. Here's why. 

 a) maybe police officers inform the family they'll notify / inform social care or maybe they don't. Don't forget that there are infinitely more police officers than social workers out there. If it's an office from a specialist DV Unit / or a police child protection team, I would generally expect this to be done well and with sensitivity. In a later night 999 call, it's most unlikely to be a specialist officer in attendance however. Mum might speak little English, everybody in the home is likely to be distressed and in a state of heightened anxiety; they might be told but aren't in a position to hear at this crisis point.

b) more substantively: I was in a reasonable postion. It's better to use the phone in these instances than write. It's a dead common scenario. Yes it's tricky / impossible if the Police haven't recorded a phone number / caller terminates or never answers / no English and languageline aren't funded in your LA (in higher risk cases to me this is a home visit NOT at letter); 

 c) Grinch - respectfully think this through - "  any time in the future when social care need to contact the family to discuss concerns -" - as you rightly say - this can't happen by letter. That's not a discussion. It's a potentially dangerous complexity in an already difficult family life. A phone call is a discussion - the worker can assess and support mum / develop an understanding of the children's perspective and involvement in the situation via firm and supportive questioning; keeping the need for a home / office visit in mind if it would help mum or questions are unanswered about safeguarding matters. Any advice can THEN be sent in a letter (Women's Aid helpline numbers etc) Mum (shorthand - forgive me!) then connects this supportive advice with the individual worker.

d) Put yourself in the position of a parent - be they a victim of entrenched and ongoing domestic violence, or just a family who have had a one-off unpleasant argument which ended in police attendance. What will the dreaded letter from social services actually do for them? Does the man read it and think "I'll mend my ways now". 

Many of these letters will contain a phrase like "future referrals to this agency may result in an assessment being opened with regard to ..... and ........ (children). To me, that's the unethical bit. The child protection and assessment process is about supporting vulnerable families, not about intimidating them. 

At very best, nothing whatsoever. The local council has written to them with intimate details of their lives, which they didn't know they had, just because some social worker wants to "cover their back" and be seen to do something rather than nothing. If I ever find a service user who was ever, in any way, been helped by an unsolicited letter then I'll eat my words, but I haven't yet! 

e) Look through case files in your agency. Lots of these cases when a letter was despatched end up being referred anyway. The letter did nothing, and no insight was developed into the case. It might then end up being picked up as CP when the family could previously been helped as CIN in the first instance. 

 I'm often a critic of the medical profession, by the hippocratic oath, taken by all doctors when they qualify is useful to think about in this one. What's the line?

 "First, do no harm".

Please consider this in relation to social work practice in relation to women / mothers who have been assaulted by violent partners.

 (sorry, getting a bit rambling towards the end there, but I think a Community Care article (or meaty piece of academic research) on "Appropriate Responses to Police Notifications to Children's Social Care for Domestic Violence" is called for. Any takers?

nighty night!

'eastend11' - an excellent posting - you raise many of the co