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 conflicting issues, not least the 'back covering' one. I think that as this thread progresses the point will be reached where there is sufficient information to submit to the likes of the GSCC / Care Standards Commission / BASW / UNISON etc for comments / advice. We clearly haven't got it anywhere near right yet but what is clear is that several of us are really concerned to try to do the right thing and also within a correct protective (and that is the main thing) and ethical framework.

Hi eastend11

It is a very interesting debate and I have alerted our magazine contents team to it- hopefully they will investigate it over the next few weeks.

Simeon

Eastend11,

"First do no harm"

  I couldn't agree more, the other one common sense appraoch would be ;

 "treat others as you would wish to be treated"

I have been through the family court system due to divorce and a cafcass officer stated my child "maybe a child in need" the judge ordered a s7 report. The SW came, took a look around, spoke to the child and said " in need of what?" but I can tell you I had many sleepless nights before the visit second guessing both myself and how I was raising my child.

We all know when a family are contacted by SW's the first reaction is usually fear, then anger, then more fear and this should be taken into account when dealing with anyone, parents can only do their best to raise their children, if there is a worry or problem it is then the job of all involved to help the parents resolve those problems not to worsen the situation with innuendo's, ultimatum's and heavy handed interference.

The ultimate goal is to keep children in the family, the job of SW's is to facilitate this, I am sure everyone entered into the profession with the intention to help children lead a better life and we all know that for only a very few the care system is not in the best interests of the children.

One aspect of this fascinating thread that caught my attention was the claim that

"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."

Schroder's Cat later asserts that Domestic Violence should not be grounds for care proceedings.

I think what is being referred to may be the amended definition of harm in section 31(9) of the Children Act, which clearly states that harm includes witnessing the ill-treatment of another.

It is true that this amended definition was introduced in recognition of the potential harm caused by witnessing domestic violence, following the case of In re L (A Child (Contact: Domestic Violence) Court of Appeal 19th June 2000.

Harm, however, is not the threshold for care proceedings. The threshold test refers to significant harm. Also, the child must be suffering or likely to suffer significant harm - which may not be the case if the perpetrator is removed.

Another claim in the thread that interested me was that it is not a breach of the Code of Conduct as the male concerned is not the service user.

I have posted a more general blog on "the harm of honesty" here: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-care-experts-blog/2008/08/the-harm-of-honesty.html 

I must observe, however, that it is mistaken to believe that the Codes of Practice only regulate conduct with service users. Please don't imagine that the GSCC wouldn't be interested in a conviction for an offence of dishonesty because it didn't involve a service user; or that a sexual relationship with the said perpetrator could be defended on the grounds that he was not the service user...

 Celtic Knot, can you expand somewhat on your second post ?

 The Code of Conduct wasn't central to my thinking in the first instance - the welfare of mother and child was amd yes these ar separate entitities] - and I think the "telesales" answer at the time was, and is, defensible.

 Even less central to my thinking was the "who's the service user" thing. However I do think you're incorrect. The Code of Conudct in relation to the provision of social worker services so to speak, would clearly only relate to service users.  Other aspects of the Code of Conduct - about being a generally professional and proper person to practice social work aren't - by way of defintion - related to practice in any sense - but to 'good character'. So I think the distinction is fairly clear actually. The telephone call counts as the "provision of social work services" in my book so I think the [wrongly] alleged dishonestly regaring the C of C isn't applicable. Example; if social worker Fred beat up a man on a bus in unprovoked and random attack, Fred would - rightly - fall foul of the code of conduct not becuase my social work practice was questionable specificially, but becuase my good character and integrity clearly were. By contrast, if Fred- say -recklessly divulged confidential information about a service user or made a racist remark about someone in a case conference then again Fred's going to be in trouble with the GSCC and again he's breached the C of C. But in a different way - the prime concern here is about his practice. One can be wrong in more than one way, basically. 

 A violent father would rightly be considered a service user, entitled to appropriate, courteous and ethical treatment from social workers; but that doesn't mean he would be entitled to "honesty" about, say, mothers whereabouts were he to ask the social worker about them.

 I don't think that your last paragraph is at all relevant to the current discussion. A conviction for dishonesty - i.e. a criminal offence would obviously be relevant and of interset to the GSCC because, er, it's a criminal offence. Totally unsure about your point about a sexual relationship point.

 Really glad people find this thread of interest :-) I'm sure people would be genuinely interested if Referral and Assessment SWers could comment (anonymisising themselves and their agency) over whether they are "writers, phoners, or knockers" - so to speak (!)  - in response to domestic violence P78s.

 Celtic Knot - I' ve just read your full blog post. I'm pleased that you have prodcued such a full and thoughtful response, and grateful. I also think you're wrong in just about every way. I sort of suspect we're both the type of person who will find the minutae of this debate interesting, so here goes. I hope you don't mind if I cut and paste your comment in full and, hope it takes some readers over to you blog!

My responses are in bold for clarity. Cut and paste starts below

"There is a fascinating thread on CareSpace, discussing letters sent to survivors of domestic violence following police referral. While it started as a discussion of the appropriateness of such letters, there is a signifcant debate about the ethics of lying to a man who picks up the phone when you wanted to speak to the woman survivor, about who you are.

The argument goes: the man may be the perpetrator; the woman may receive a beating at his hands, simply because of the fact of an unknown caller, or the fact of a caller from social services. To avoid this, lie about who you are - the actual example under discussion being a social worker saying they are a telesales person.

From a utilitarian starting point, it has been suggested, we seek to avoid harm and the harm caused by the lie is less than the potential harm caused by the truth.

Utilitarianism has its points - see my earlier posts indeed, but as a statutory worker I work closely within agency guidelines in a closely regulated system which puts children's welfare over and above the rights of adults. Classical utiliatarianism isn't really qualified by the age of the parties; social care law is. Therefore I'm guilty of misconduct if I choose to adopt my own personal value system; be it utilitarianism, revolutionary socialism, political Islam or neoliberalism over that of my employing agency.

Certainly, the avoidance of harm seems a sound ethical starting point. But here are some of my doubts about it:

Firstly, we surely should not arrogate to ourselves responsibility for the harm caused by others. If the perpetrator is going to inflict harm, the perpetrator is responsible for that harm. Our responsibility is to seek to protect from harm. If we genuinely believe there is a risk of significant harm, a phonecall is never going to discharge our responsibility to protect from harm. If, however, our informed professional judgement is that significant harm is unlikely, but it nonetheless results, it will at least not be us who caused the harm.

Nonsene! Obviously if I made a mistake as a social worker which indirectly was responsible for harm coming to a servie user then I am only guiltly of what I have done, and not of the direct harm; but I still have a significant level of responsibilty. A foolish social worker who divulged the address of a former partner to an estranged and morbidly jealous individual who attended the address and murdered them isn't guilty of murder; but they are guiltly of misconduct, and should know of the serious consequences of it. The reality of social work is that we MUST plan around the reality of our family's lives.

Many of our service users - much as we wish otherwise - live in environments where they are exposed to violence on a daily basis. Therefore it's obvious that one responds to them taking that reality into account. That's not concluding with the violence, far from it, but it is avoiding the intervention to them causing further harm. Many serious case reviews - and the Laming Inquiry- rightly point out that it was the parents / murderer whoever was was responsible for the death of the child. However, as social work practiotioners we are rightly accountable if we don't intervene appropraitely with the risk to the child "in mind" so to speak. 

I'm not sure - to my surprise - that you understand the purpose or process behind the phone call. It's not about discharging anyone's responsibility really. It's about beginning to make an evaluation of someone's situation to see if social work intervention. It's result might be closing the case, or it might be the prelude to a significant and lengthy piece of work. 

Second, we must take responsibility for means as well as ends. Good ends do not justify bad means. Lying may not be intrinsically harmful, but the breakdown of trust in relationships when people do not know whether others are lying is a wider harm. In the present context, it is hard to pinpoint the harm of the particular lie, but if it became generally known that state officials entrusted with the protection of children sometimes masqueraded as telesales callers, this could undermine confidence in social work generally - a few steps down the line, and our service users would be wondering whether the man who says he is there to read the meter is really there to remove the children...

 Given the confidentiality surrounding our work, I'm not convinced by the "wider harm" argument, although of course families themselves can discuss their relations with social workers with whoever they like, so news does spread so to speak.

 The Children Act doesn't acknowledge "wider harm" and nor should it. It's interested in the harm which might, or has, happened to a particular child or children.

For example, there is arguably a "wider harm" in insisting that people who wish to become foster carers have a spare bedroom at home - this rules out the majority of people who don't - and can't afford to live in a property with a spare bedroom. Effectively that discriminates - formally and significantly - against the less well off, by denying them the wonderful opportunity of becoming a foster carer. As a social worker, that pains me greatly.

But the policy is quite correct. Individual children would suffered if placed in foster care in a over-crowded or cramped home. Therefore reducing individual harm to a child quite rightly wins out against your spurious claim of wider harm - to the less-well off - each and every time.

I think the manreading the meter point is a bit daft and I won't respond . More to the point "state officials trusted with the care of children" quite often *** up rather spectacularly, and their actions and inactions can and have indirectly led to serious harm being caused to those children. I do rather think that's the more salient point.

Thirdly, surely there must be a test of necessity? Certainly a "white lie" cannot lie at the more serious end of moral misdemeanours, and if it is the only way of avoiding harm, it may become morally justifiable. But necessity implies the lack of any alternative. If the full truth is harmful, surely the alternative to fiction is something true but innocuous: "Oh, sorry, my mistake!" and hang up?

Reread the scenario. "My mistake" doesn't work as I'd already asked for the person by name. And anyway why is saying "wrong number" any more or less "dishonest" than saying you work in telesales. I would know full well it wasn't a wrong number. So, that too would be a lie!

 "There are alternatives to the "white lie". See my response to Grinch above. But they all could cause direct harm to the child. No one has - or to be honest could - explain why terminating a call on "telesales" grounds could or would harm the child in that family situation - the family unit who are the starting point of ALL that we do.

 Enough of me! Night all.....

 Celtic Knot, would be really pleased to hear back

 copyright Eastend11 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

eastend11 -

I'm responding here to your post about my honesty blog.

I'm happy that you don't actually seem to think I'm "wrong in just about every way", and to be clear, neither do I think you're  wrong in just about every way -  it is clear to me the argument is actually about nuances and emphasis, so in responding, I'll avoid words like "nonsense", "spurious" and "daft".

You say that "Obviously if I made a mistake as a social worker which indirectly was responsible for harm coming to a service user then I am only guilty of what I have done, and not of the direct harm; but I still have a significant level of responsibilty." If you re-read my comment, you will find that we agree both on what we are, and what we are not responsible for. You choose to emphasise the extent of our responsibility, I choose to emphasise the limits on it. You refer to the reality of service users who can suffer because of our actions. Among my client social workers are those who have been blamed for the actual harm caused, when children have sustained serious injuries, who will benefit from a reminder of the limits of their responsibility.

You refer to the Laming Report. Press and Public don't necessarily make the distinction that we do, which is why Lisa Arthurworrey, the social worker with direct responsibility for Victoria Climbie, was branded a child murderer, which we would agree she was not; and more controversially was placed on the POCA list, which I would have thought (and the Care Standards Tribunal eventually confirmed) was inappropriate in the light of the distinction between the direct and indirect harm that you and I both made - but it happened, and I don't think my reminder of the limits of our responsibility is untimely.

I am pleased that your phonecall was intended as the beginning of an evaluation. But this thread started with a discussion of letters which concerned social workers have clearly described to me in the past as intended to be the end of the process. The letters are sent, and that's all that is done, there is no evaluation, unless something further occurs.

Moving on, your example of wider harm is one which reflects the inevitable tensions between immediate and wider harm generated by law and policy. But the tension that I am discussing is not such. No-one is requiring you to lie (I hope and believe! My client social workers also include those whose employers have required them to lie and I deal with the fallout...). In the absence of any imperative, we are entitled to both protect children as required of us, and also have regard to the wider harm in deciding how we do so.

I am sorry you think the man reading the meter point is "a bit daft", especially if it is indicative of an unwillingness to engage with wider harm. Those who live in  totalitarian regimes will tell you of the perpetual state of fear that results from never knowing who is and who is not an agent of the state. I am glad that I live in a society where I do not need to go around in such a state of fear. Elements of the Rule of Law that bring this about include obligations of transparency that are placed upon the state, and the regulation of non-criminal conduct. Most ethical debates take place by people taking clear cut examples and extrapolating principles to the less clear cut ones, with the result that people actually agree on the ethical stance to be taken at the two extremes, but disagree with the effect of extrapolation in the middle. You are likely to tell me, therefore, that you agree with me about totalitarian regimes, but disagree about the man reading the meter...

In conclusion you say, "No one has - or to be honest could - explain why terminating a call on "telesales" grounds could or would harm the child in that family situation - the family unit who are the starting point of ALL that we do." Which brings me back full circle. Neither do I identify any harm you have caused to the child. My observations, as you correctly report, were prefaced with this observation: "Certainly, the avoidance of harm seems a sound ethical starting point. But here are some of my doubts about it..."  

I hope that language of doubt makes clear that I'm not approaching this debate with some kind of moral rectitude, "lying is always wrong". You made the telephone call in question, and I would commend you for sharing it and the issues raised by it. My doubts lead me to conclude both that the practice is possible to avoid, and best to avoid. Others may disagree.

Briefly, the context of your original remark was an unqualified comment, in bold, in rebuttal of Grinch. The appearance was that you were making a simple and obvious point that the GSCC is concerned only with our dealings with service users. I wanted to correct any apparent misapprehension on the part of readers.

And continuing in the same vein, the GSCC's interest in dishonesty is NOT only where it results in a criminal conviction. Dishonesty found to a civil standard, such as a finding by an employer, or the higher still regulatory standard such as a finding by another regulator, might also breach the Code.

Social workers who do find themselves in this situation can get some comfort from the recent case of Bryant & Anor v The Law Society [2007] EWHC 3043 (Admin) (21 December 2007), which explained and affirmed a slightly different test of non-criminal dishonesty in the context of professional regulatory proceedings.

If in doubt - take legal advice! We offer it... 

I work for a charity that supports a range of disadvantaged (by a number of definitions - I hate that word but not sure what else to use) people, victims of domestic abuse amongst them. We have a policy never to write to domestic abuse victims unless the victim has confirmed the address is safe to write to. If we ring, and don't get hold of our client we explain we are calling from a National Charity, and suggest (by omission rather than anything else) that it is a telebegging cold call. How we identify ourselves on the phone is a constant issue under discussion, especially with the facility for people to have caller display or "ring back" - and when many people won't answer a withheld number. In most cases, it probably wouldn't matter, but for some of our clients it could be life or death. Literally.

In my local authority we never send out letters in cases of domestic abuse and always undertake a home visit. We do not leave a calling card either if no one is home in case this puts the abused person/children at any further risk.  I have not been aware of the police not informing the families that a referral has been made to social services but on occasions this has been forgotten by the family following the incident. I do think that sending a letter could heighten an already stressful situation within the family and that not discussing who is calling on the telephone is not a bad thing due to confidentiality for one and that it may again heighten the situation within the family indeed putting the children at further risk for another.  I feel that until the situation can be assessed fully in person this should if at all possible be avoided. It has been really interesting reading all the ways domestic abuse is dealt with by different local authorities and social workers and that some research by service users who have experienced domestic abuse and involvement from social workers would be beneficial to us all.

Well, this thread has certainly moved on since I last stopped by. Some good points have been well made and I think I'll reflect a little on the points before I add a few more thoughts.....

I agree this letter in DV cases being sent to the victim, is not a sensitive approach in offering support to the survivor of the violence in the home, it would only make this worse.

Family support should be on offer depending on how sever the incident of DV is. However if the victim is not willing to accept support and is not able to minimise the DV exposer to the children by declining help then CP approach may be needed as the children are the ones that suffer the most in such cases and live in fear etc... 

Having worked in CP for 13 yrs I know it is a delicate area of case management as one needs to consider the child/ren and the DV victim- often being the mother  (in most cases) or father, gets to be lost in the system of being a vulnerable adult in need of protection in thier own right too.

The best method of working with DV and CP cases is to involve Safegaurding Adults SW team for the victim of DV and Childrens SW team for the children.

This type of joint working would best meet the needs of both age group of vulnerable people. This is could be a wish list and a long way to getting it implimented but it sure would make a seemless vulnerable people services without age discrimination.

Now working in Older Adults SW services, I do feel there is still a long way to go to protecting such people suffering DV. I have had questions being asked if one should class DV as a Safeguarding Adults case for alerts or investigation.

In my opinion, how can an assualt or harm in DV cases not be safeguarding issue?  Just because the husband or wife is abusive, should this still be seen as its ok?

If someone was asaulted on the street would that not be a criminal matter, of course it would, so shy should it be different if it happens in the home?

It is sad to note that there are still some people holding such old fashioned ideas and those not moving with the times by updating ones knowledge and is yet able to practice as consultants or SW.