Protecting Our Children: join our live chat

Our panel of social work experts will be back on Monday evening to discuss the second episode of BBC series Protecting Our Children. Make sure you join them from 8.30pm.

 

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/static-pages/articles/Protecting-our-children/

 

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Home/?altcast_code=c57b4530af

Is the programme itself on at 8.30pm?  I'm hunting for it on the tv schedule but it's not coming up?  I don't understand....I'm based in Scotland but I watched last weeks episode the day after on catch up tv...hmmm

11.20 Scotland.  9.00 Wales and England.

Ah I see, thank you!

very sad, but very honest

Well that was a very sad show, but the right outcome for the child. It was good that it showed more of the planning process and the attempts to work with the parents than the last show did.

Hats off to social worker Annie (in particular) and team manager Arthur for their empathy, calmness and great communication skills while still remaining strong around the safeguarding. Top quality social work practice in my opinion.

Better outcome for the child, I agree BUT given the previous and lengthy history (again) of the parents (with 3 children removed) I still feel that the 'Rule of Optimism' featured too highly. Mother's initial seemingly positive response was too short and un-tested and to move her into a Mother & Baby foster-placement seemed ill-judged - albeit understandable to some extent (Human Rights and all that).

I feel that on birth an Emergency Protection Order / Interim care Order should have been applied for - that would have immediately brought the Court and a Children's Guardian into play. Ideally I then feel that there should have ben a Concurrent Plan in place ideally with an adoptive placement lined up - there are approved adopters who can cope with uncertainty - and a period of intensive, monitored and on-going Contact initiated. This would have allowed mother and child to bond to a degree whilst also ensuring that baby did not have to have any further placment.

Any psychological assessment on father would surely have been such as to rule him out as a carer - perhaps also for mother. If one has to visit with 2 Security Guards what does that say about the safety and welfare of a baby?

We have to learn from what we know about Attachment Theory and what Research tells us about severely damaged parents - that sometimes means having to make hard decisions but these parents have had 3 previous children and surely on that basis alone any short-term improvements / seeming improvements have to be regarded with a healthy degree of scepticism. Their eventual responses proved that it was all far too great a risk from the outset.

 

Indeed hats of to Annie, what an excellent social worker, also well supported by her team manager. This episode was really inspiring.

This time I only had one idea of extra support which Marva could have had and this was a back up plan of what to do if she were to bump into Shaun, as this was quite a likely occurence at sometime. I believe this is where it went wrong, when she bumped into him at a shop. Most of the time she was not very strong in standing up to him and I can imagine what the meeting might have been like. Could she have had a pager? It is possible that Annie had talked through this with Marva, maybe it wasn't shown.

Rupert M:

Mother's initial seemingly positive response was too short and un-tested and to move her into a Mother & Baby foster-placement seemed ill-judged - albeit understandable to some extent (Human Rights and all that).

I feel that on birth an Emergency Protection Order / Interim care Order should have been applied for - that would have immediately brought the Court and a Children's Guardian into play

Gently disagree, Rupert thought Annie and Arthur did a splendid job in trying to separate Mother from a long term abusive relationship, so hard for her to do it because of father's dependency, it was amazing she looked so much better when away from him, really felt she might 'separate'. Foster carer was also very good. The usual offer of 3 contacts a week would hardly promote attachment and many vulnerable parents can't cope with it - and it is terrible for children. At least the baby had a few days of proper care with his mother. What was sadder for me was moving the baby to yet another foster home, and that point we probably agree that the baby should have been directly placed with adopters.

Thought all those involved were a credit to social work and fostering .. and tough but realistic viewing for would be child care social workers.

I also noted the toll it was taking on Annie .. thought she had insight in talking about the problem of processing the experience and how the demands of her other cases got in the way.

 

Agreeing generally that this was one of the best examples we are likely to see today, and it was still well out of context of the melee of other cases and business activity that would have been going on....but..

I was amazed at the amount of interviewing that went on out in the street in public view (and earshot?)of the neighbours with two security men beaconing the spectacle.

Was this just because of the documentary, or are the specifications that I was taught as essential for an effective and professional interview now obsolete?

Agree with SS and on the same theme, why do we still have CCs and meetings where no effort is made at user friendly surroundings.

I think a "soft" room is a must in every office complex.

Episode 2 showed good social work practice. Throughout the baby was protected and planning was in place. I do not see this as 'rule of optimism' but very careful and well informed recognition of the possibilities and immediate protective action when required. This was very different from the first episode where we witnessed a vulnerable child experiencing chronic neglect for some months before action was taken to protect him.  Episode 2 enabled the mother to have another opportunity to be a parent and as soon as it was clear that she could not manage there was no delay at all in progressing the multi agency planning which was already in place for such a contingency.    This baby will know that his mother did try and that social workers tried to help her . This information will be very important for him in the future.   This episode was filmed with great sensitivity and the social work skills especially in communication with the mother, father , baby , foster carer and colleagues were the best. 

I actually feel quite uncomfortable watching this program, I feel that those who have been filmed have been exploited.  I know they would have consented to the filming but I am not sure they would have fully understood the implications of such a program.

The program was designed to enlighten the general public as to "behind the scenes" of Social Work but due to the heavy editing, I'm not sure that has been achieved.

The system has clearly failed the father as he was growing up, it is clear he has mental health issues but there was no evidence of any support in his own right.  He did appear insighful of his own problems and recognised he had a terrible childhood. 

Rightly so that baby has now been adopted, but the mother and father are back together, without any support I expect, to go on and have another baby ......

Sometimes formality is essential - 'soft' surroundings do not ease 'hard' messages.

There was an appalling and lengthy history to this Case - whilst initially there seemed to be some maturation - especially Shaun acknowledging the effects of his abusive past - the extent of the emotional damage sustained by the parents was altogether too extreme to expect any short-term improvement. My guess is that it may never happen - or that it will take years.

adarynefoedd:

Annie and Arthur did a splendid job in trying to separate Mother from a long term abusive relationship, so hard for her to do it because of father's dependency, it was amazing she looked so much better when away from him, really felt she might 'separate'.

I think that at times we are very quick to have one-sided views on abusive relationships and I've seen so many times workers being completely oblivious to mothers' own background. I've even seen cases where mothers were just as abusive as the fathers, however their aggressive behaviour was minimized(the the case here, I know). I would say in this case mum came across as dependent on dad just as much as he depended on her - an by the looks of it they only had each other, it was them against the world. She had his name tattooed on her neck, she started to cry when she heard of his overdose and I really wondered about her necklace which read "wish" which she visibly placed on her lips when asked a difficult question. The man said they had known each other for 14 years and been together for nearly 4, they had a lot of shared experiences - a lot of them negative, like violence and loss, but at times hardship brings people closer together than happiness. I agree with Rupert it was over-optimistic to think that it would be as easy as mum deciding to break up and dad respecting that - it was quite clear all along that emotionally they were not letting go and at some point the Social Worker was like the telegraph between the two.

I also think mum's overdoses should have been taken very seriously, to some extent this pregnancy was higher risk than all previous ones, even the Social Worker said that it was the first time that mum was seeing professionals while being drunk - yet this was the pregnancy where she was given the chance to look after the baby without the protection of an order. I suppose they were very lucky that the baby was not harmed during the 14 hours when they were missing. In my experience, though, in cases like these once separation has occurred, the chances for reunification are very small, so it is no surprise that history ended up repeating itself. It is a very sad case and in my opinion it highlights the need for appropriate support for parents after their children are removed and placed for adoption, to cut the vicious cycle of parents ending up repeatedly in front of the Courts with the same problems, always unresolved and always with the same outcome baby after baby after baby. 

You make excellent points 'RP' and, yes, as 'adarynefoedd' pointed out mother looked so much better when apart from father but  UNLESS her dependency could be replaced by something more positive and fulfilling she was ever likely to relapse. Having 'lost' 3 previous babies one can understand the social workers etc. wanting to believe that to keep this fourth one ought to be the greatest motivation I must wholeheartedly agree with 'RP' that her actions during her pregnancy did not indicate that to be the case - indeed, she potentially could have caused greater harm by her drinking and serious overdoses.

Marva, herseld, needed 'mothering' - her needs were so immense that she had nothing left to give to anyone else. Really sadly Shaun had more insight but the damage he had suffered over the years was overwhelming and he was unable to translate any good intentions into positive actions.

Shaun's singing of 'Twinkle, Twinkle litte star' was almost heartbreaking - especially when he ended with "You're a star" - that was perhaps the briefest glimpse into what he would have really wanted to be like. Those who perpetrated abuse on Shaun are as much, if not more, to blame than he is and have much to answer for.

Where are they now and how are they getting on?

SW said if she gets to the point where she doesn't care then it's time to stop doing the job.

Then goes on the sick for two weeks.

Stress!

Does not the statement contradict those who look upon SW as a profession and is it a valid statement?

What's best? a caring SW on the sick or a more detached one in work?

Have never heard of a burnt out accountant/ banker/ lawyer/GP.

SW is a service.

It's right to care but How much?

(I thought when dad sang, that was the only time he was being divisive, not like last weeks dad.)

I tend to agree in large part but social work is all about working with people and where they are at - we have moved a long way from Biestek's 'The Caswork Relationship' - and, hopefully become more 'professional' but not less 'caring' - the 2 concepts do not need to be exclusive or opposed to each other.

Stress can affect people in very different ways, I was not surprised that the SW needed time to recover. I totally agree that if you stop caring you should consider a different area of work. There are many other professionals who burn out, many attend AA meetings....

The emotional impact of the work carried out needs to be supported and with the large caseloads carried by SWs trying to protect children (I have no experience of Adult SW) makes this very hard. I do not think that this contradicts the idea that SW is a profession. Yes it is a service but it's also provided by humans with feelings and emotions. A certain amount of detachment is essential but you cannot ever predict when a case may affect you.

littleflea77:

Stress can affect people in very different ways, I was not surprised that the SW needed time to recover. I totally agree that if you stop caring you should consider a different area of work. There are many other professionals who burn out, many attend AA meetings....

The emotional impact of the work carried out needs to be supported and with the large caseloads carried by SWs trying to protect children (I have no experience of Adult SW) makes this very hard. I do not think that this contradicts the idea that SW is a profession. Yes it is a service but it's also provided by humans with feelings and emotions. A certain amount of detachment is essential but you cannot ever predict when a case may affect you.

              Burnout is a term exclusive to SW.                                       Professionals have breakdowns.

Can you make a case for detached workers being less effective, with examples? I'll tell you now, no.

 

I thought last nights episode was even better than the first. ... I don't think Annie was wrong to say that she would stop doing the job if she stopped caring and I don't think caring about a family shows a lack of professionalisum. If workers are completely detached and don't connect with people on any level than there is less opportunity for success in keeping a family together as there would be less trust from the parents, less good communication and chance for parents to gain insight into their positions and lives .... We don't know why she went off on sick leave - it could have been this case or could have been a culmination of her 14 other cases ... Though shirack does have an argument about burn out ... The emotion toil in this job is harder than being a banker or something... Stress is stress ..call it burn out or breakdown it boils down to stress but there are different types. .... The one criticism that I have would have been that the la should have got an ico and dealt with things on cpp and s.20... The optimism was quite high and something I could not get to grips with ... Marva had made what were to her big changes but knowing the history and being able to see the codependency of the relationship should have to more caution about those changes... Also I'm assuming the baby was moved because of the security risk of marva knowing where the placement was .... Such a shame for him.... Also I know it's not our remit as such but just asking her to leave placement and not helping have anywhere to go was setting her up to fail .... Of course she would end up back with Shaun. .... Heartbreaking viewing...... I have seen a lot more positive feedback about the role of social workers following this episode than last week but am still dismayed that my partner commented that social workers are wasting their time on people like marva and Shaun and that they didn't deserve another chance after the three previous pregnancies... His rather scary argument was forced sterilisation .... A heated debate has been had this evening!!!!!

 Schmidt begins his attack on professionalism by observing that qualified professionals are less creative and diverse in their opinions and habits than non-professionals, which he attributes to the subtle indoctrination and filtering which accompanies the process of professional training. 

 

Have a read of "Disciplined Minds"

This is why I have a downer on the ethos of SW training and those deemed the required raw material.

So what is your definition of 'social work' and who should deliver it, 'Shirack'? Do you feel that any qualifications / eexperience are required?

I assume that you generally would regard social work as being potentially dangerous?

Interesting there is a new thread on being proud to be a social worker.

I always was and felt a little superior when asked what I did. The usual response being; "Oh I couldn't do that ........ I'd get too involved"

I used to think about that response and what they were really saying.

Concluded that they felt you had to be cold vicious barst**d to do the job. 

Then I thought how wrong they were but now I'm not so sure. Seems to fit in with my theory of where the powers that be are taking the service. There is a definite change in qualities looked for, post Thatcher.

Didn't think that you would give a clear answer!

supersonic:

I thought last nights episode was even better than the first. ... I don't think Annie was wrong to say that she would stop doing the job if she stopped caring and I don't think caring about a family shows a lack of professionalisum. If workers are completely detached and don't connect with people on any level than there is less opportunity for success in keeping a family together as there would be less trust from the parents, less good communication and chance for parents to gain insight into their positions and lives .... We don't know why she went off on sick leave - it could have been this case or could have been a culmination of her 14 other cases ... Though shirack does have an argument about burn out ... The emotion toil in this job is harder than being a banker or something... Stress is stress ..call it burn out or breakdown it boils down to stress but there are different types. .... The one criticism that I have would have been that the la should have got an ico and dealt with things on cpp and s.20... The optimism was quite high and something I could not get to grips with ... Marva had made what were to her big changes but knowing the history and being able to see the codependency of the relationship should have to more caution about those changes... Also I'm assuming the baby was moved because of the security risk of marva knowing where the placement was .... Such a shame for him.... Also I know it's not our remit as such but just asking her to leave placement and not helping have anywhere to go was setting her up to fail .... Of course she would end up back with Shaun. .... Heartbreaking viewing...... I have seen a lot more positive feedback about the role of social workers following this episode than last week but am still dismayed that my partner commented that social workers are wasting their time on people like marva and Shaun and that they didn't deserve another chance after the three previous pregnancies... His rather scary argument was forced sterilisation .... A heated debate has been had this evening!!!!!

 

yeah the lack of services provided or aftercare for the parents was disturbing really - one minute marva is someone who is centre of attention and people are falling over themselves to "rescue"  then as soon as she is babyless shes to all intents and purposes abandoned to violence and squalor. Whats the betting she gets pregnant sometime soon?

with Shaun  surely the most consistent service in his life would be prison/ police? cant be a better argument for intense therapeutic interventions when inside - and possibly not letting people out until its had an effect lol

i think the forced sterilisation thing would be most peoples answer and it crossed my mind at one point - Im sure that parents with such caos in their lives  can be helped with the right approach and resource level but its not going to happen in our society anytime soon and how traumatic must it be to have child after child taken off you?

 

Completely agree, I question how they get the parents to consent to participating, the indications from the couple in the first episode would suggest they had learning difficulties and the second couple had mental health issues. I wonder if their capacity to make a decision to participate in the programmes has been formally assessed!

I think that you probably answered your question from your observations of their difficulties.

It was the same with the programme that was on a few months ago - all the parents had a learning disability!

Certainly raises the issue of 'informed' consent.

Rupert M:

Certainly raises the issue of 'informed' consent.

That was my reservation too. 

Having finally caught-up, I just wanted to echo DrLizDavies that episode 2 showed good social work practice, and as adarynefoedd put it, "all those involved were a credit to social work and fostering".

Looking forward to episode 3.

Tony

Sorry, but I can't agree. It was a hopelsss scenario from the outset with a lengthy and detailed history. Unless we learn from history / research and evidence-based practice we will continue to 'chase rainbows' and give to much weight to the 'rule of optimism.'

Whilst there were temporary glimpses of insight / maturation the intra-personal damages suffered by the parents and their unhelpful co-dependance all indicated failure.

Thankfully, however, the baby was removed for adoption quite early on but with perhaps 2 otherwise unrequired fostering placements.

Sorry to perhaps be a kill-joy but we have to deal with reality rather than unfounded hopes.

Rupert M:

Sorry, but I can't agree. It was a hopelsss scenario from the outset with a lengthy and detailed history. Unless we learn from history / research and evidence-based practice we will continue to 'chase rainbows' and give to much weight to the 'rule of optimism.'

Whilst there were temporary glimpses of insight / maturation the intra-personal damages suffered by the parents and their unhelpful co-dependance all indicated failure.

Thankfully, however, the baby was removed for adoption quite early on but with perhaps 2 otherwise unrequired fostering placements.

Sorry to perhaps be a kill-joy but we have to deal with reality rather than unfounded hopes.

yeah i agree with that - i have some old work colleagues who remind me of shaun - really really damaged  and to be honest the fact they recognise they are  doesnt really make any difference as the services just arent there to even touch the things that have gone on .  And they clearly use the fact that they have insight and its seen as positive thing etc to manipulate people - particularly women. 

I think that the rule of optimism was actually based on sexism in that programme - the whole idea that all marvas issues were caused by shaun and once he was gone everything would be ok is a very feminist view and completely ignores the fact that even if she'd steered clear of shaun she would in all probability found a shaun mark 2

Have to agree with some of the other comments on here.  As a child protection social worker I was surprised that this child was returned home, taking in to account the history and a far too brief period to assess the mother on her own, with a number of issues including her mental health, alcohol issues and her vulnerability.  It just shows how local authorities would respond to a situation differently, even something like this which on the surface appears very clear cut.  I know in my authority, the child would be removed at birth and mother would be assessed during contact, if her quality of contact was good, her mental health improving, abstinence from excessive alcohol use and not entering in a relationship with the birth father, only then would we look to rehabilitating the child home to the mother.  A psychological assessment on mother may also be required before rehabilitation.  

Well if there is one thing that this thread very well illustrates to me is that there appears to be very little in the way of consistent practice or consistent applications of thresholds from one geographical area to another, and little sense of consensus between social workers as to what consists good practice.

 

I couldn't agree more!

Well, I think it was the right plan. I did not see the mum and baby 'returned home'. They were in foster care-both of them. A chance for mother to learn from the foster carer in a home environment, that was safe, whilst bonding with her baby and being assessed day to day.

More spontaneous and realistic than a few hours contact here and there, in a false environment, without testing out the 24 hour capability. Then what would have happened? If mum did well, send her to cope on her own, with baby, without a realistic idea if she will cope?

As for the risk of her returning to partner, that has to be tested out-and it was. Better sooner than later.

As for parents being left without support- they did not want support. They did not perceive their lifestyle to be problematic. Without a baby, it is their choice and right not to engage.