Emotional harm to children

Any of us who stayed in the job long enough to see wheels reinvented several times over and, when assertive enough to say so, would be firmly told to put positive spin on the plans, otherwise we'd be called cynics or dinosaurs. Another one here, nellie. The worst one for me was the move to the notion that anyone can see the service user, and the social worker/probation officer who thinks the trusting relationship they have built up is significant in effecting change is misguided. That lasted a few years, then it was adjusted to 'service users need to see familiar faces whom they can trust.' Not that resources were provided to enable that. If I was going through a crisis, I'd want to meet a SW who knew my story so I didn't have to keep repeating it again and again. I know some changes are unavoidable, but many are unnecessary, and occur on the whim of someone who has lost touch with the actual work.

HollyDaze, your post about effective work in a relatively short period of time has made me . An experienced, well trained and supervised social worker should be able to get to the heart of many family problems without the need for endless going no where type contacts.

Don't run for the hills Nellie, another vote of support for your views on re-inventing the wheel from this (also thankfully) retired, social worker.

That's good HollyDaze, Better than I thought.

I agree with you about practice and new 'academics' reinventing the wheel Nellie.

I am a great proponent of generic practice though, and I think we lost more than we gained in the drive for ever more specialisation. I think we forgot what social work is. I don't think it will be brought back, but I could be wrong.

I thought it was nightowl - what they achieved in those 30 minute stints obviously worked and the end result being positive is all that matters really. I would rather have 30 minutes of quality help than an hour of dross!

Ok! what follows is my very cynical and jaded view of social work practice but somewhere therein is a grain of truth.

The social work circle of best practice was once, try and sort the dysfunctional family out. Keep trying for years while the kids get more and more damaged before acknowledging defeat. Versus, take them away ASAP so they get some stability, these ideas have been recycled as "best practice" for years.

Unfortunately, I have seen these theories being recycled as new people, dare I say academics, try to make their place in whatever current system is in vogue by reinventing the wheel. Most of them have not remembered why certain methods of working were abandoned to start with.

I started in in the early 1970s with Seebohm's stuff about generic social work being the best idea ever. That idea had gone almost totally by the late 80s where I worked. I have this awful feeling someone is sure to decide to bring it back in again.

Runs for cover from the social work profession.
I happily cancelled my registration in 2011.

So not brilliant support even then HollyDaze!

nightowl

If only we could return to those days HollyDaze. Social workers no longer have time to offer the kind of support you benefitted from, and which many families often need. It's all about care proceedings nowadays

To be honest, each social worker (first a woman, then a chap) only stayed around 30 minutes per visit and spent most of the time chatting with my daughter - getting her to draw specific pictures where she had to pose the family for a family photograph (she did explain all of the reasons for the different activities and, I have to say, I found it fascinating).

I wish all families could get that kind of support when it is needed. I suppose it's the trouble with society as it has developed with decision-making being made along the lines of wanting to get as much as possible from as little as possible - it's doomed to failure.

It is terribly tricky, but sometimes I believe children come to terms more easily with the concept of better the devil you know than external placement, whether it be fostering (once or numerous times) or care homes. There is a huge breach of trust the child feels that needs to be bridged initially, from all quarters. Attachment issues conflict the child (whether fully understood or not). There's also the issue of siblings, which can complicate matters considerably.
The only way forward, as everyone who works in this sphere understands, is to look at each individual case separately. Putting into practice the nuances of governmental guidelines is an almost impossible task.

One of the things I found touching about the programme was the way one of the SWs insisted on recording all the positive things the birth mother had done with and said about her baby, even though it was obvious by then that the baby would be adopted.
The SW said that if the child ever wanted to know more about his birth mother when he was older, it would help him considerably to know that his mother had had those feelings for him, even though she wasn't capable at the time of caring for him.

Yes, attachment, resilience and behavioural problems arising from severed placements are so much better understood now and I guess that drives the move to get children permanently settled with families, but there's never going to be the perfect answer - too often it's a matter of going for the least worst arrangement whilst contested cases are resolved and chances are given. I wonder how many children are damaged by the care process, compared to those damaged by remaining with abusive parents?

I've seen a lot of children go to loving adoptive and foster parents over the years, and some say they want no contact with birth parents, whilst probably just as many, maybe more, want contact with their birth parents despite what happened when they were little. It's complicated, isn't if?

Good question ffinnocio

I would say a bit of both. The increase in drug and substance abuse has meant that more children face very damaging childhood circumstances, but we undoubtedly understand more about the issues children have always faced. We also know a great deal more about attachment disorders and this has brought about a remarkable re-framing of our understanding of looked after children, as well as expectations of carers.

What do others think?

Just a thought: Are children more challenging and demanding these days, or is it that the challenges and demands the children are faced with are more fully and deeply understood?

Your sister and her husband must have seen many changes in fostering in that time when. The demands on foster carers by the agency/ local authority are incredible nowadays. The children are also more challenging and complex. I admire those carers that manage to keep going.

One of the regrets/anxieties that my sister has about recently retiring from fostering babies and toddlers is that she and her husband have over forty years of parental experience and confidence (over thirty in fostering) to recognise when a child benefits from parent contact and they would always write down their comments in the child's progress book after supervised contacts. It is easier to notice the negatives when a certain outcome is wanted, but sometimes the outcome of a haphazard life with a mum who needs continual support is preferable if the child isn't at risk of abuse. Wise, experienced SWs recognise this and know when enough is enough, but the pressure to move things along is also understandable. It's a fine balancing act.

I agree with everything you say Iam. I think that's why I was left feeling so depressed by the programme. I don't want to be one of those people that says 'it was all so much better in my day' - we did lots of things wrong back then as well, but there was a belief that people deserved support, and that they could change, which I feel has largely gone. Sadly, those of us who remember those days have also largely gone, those still in practice are treated with disdain, and newly qualified social workers no longer know there was ever a different way. When I speak to some of them about keeping families together their eyes glaze over and I can sense them thinking 'silly old fool, what does she know?' It's a different world out there now.

It's depressing isn't it night owl. The savage cuts, and focus on adoption are having a negative impact on families, and on social work generally. The attempt to rush conclusions in care proceedings failed when the children act came in, and will no doubt fail again. It's impossible to reach safe conclusions about the future of children in a matter of weeks, cruel and unusual punishment of vulnerable families. I'm told that the refusal to appoint experts, and to rely on sw expertise is already falling, and that appropriate experts are again being brought in to help resolve situations with least harm to all concerned.
I don't feel totally pessimistic, there are some excellent practitioners working. Ok then, I feel almost totally pessimistic, unless case loads are reduced, inexperienced workers given proper support and supervision, and social work based on research and evidence, rather than ideology ...

If only we could return to those days HollyDaze. Social workers no longer have time to offer the kind of support you benefitted from, and which many families often need. It's all about care proceedings nowadays

The current press coverage is almost universally negative. The situations where people feel it was helpful tend not to get publicised for good reasons.

And that is a shame, Iam64, as I'm sure there are many parents that, like me, felt/feel unsure of how to handle things. Without their help, my children may not have grown in the well-rounded adults that they are today.

I would also add that other people add stigma to parents asking social services for help - my mother was horrified and said I would lose the children if I went down that route. I suppose my childrens' welfare was more important to me and the social workers were so supportive.

sorry posted too soon, I meant

Thanks for your post HollyDaze. It's made me remember that sometimes, social work intervention is helpful to families. The current press coverage is almost universally negative. The situations where people feel it was helpful tend not to get publicised for good reasons. [smil]

From my own experience of social workers having to identify emotional abuse in very young children (I asked them for help as I was out of my depth trying to deal with it), I have nothing but praise for the way they handled it and their help in resolving a very difficult situation (that centred on emotional abuse). The end result being that my first husband was awarded no legal access to the children - and that was over 30 years ago.

For the record - there was no other form of abuse from their father, that I would have spotted quicker and dealt with it with more confidence instead of wondering if I was overreacting (in the beginning).

The channel4 program was very interesting.

They certainly showed just what difficulties some of these parents, present to those trying to protect their children.

I felt it showed a very accurate picture of how some of these troubled parents behave, particular the guy who had to be removed from the case conference he had no insight whatsoever into how his own behaviour influenced the situation, it was all everyone else's fault.

I cannot help feeling a bit sorry for people like that as you can see them on a pattern of self destruction digging themselves into a complete mess.

I wouldn't trust the likes of him near any woman or child though.

I hope so when but I believe they are moving on in the next programme to look at the next stages of the adoption process, so I assumed they would be moving away from the focus on birth families. I hope I'm wrong.

Yes jane, contact workers are not required to be qualified. Qualified or not, I hate to see workers sitting through contact sessions making notes. How many of us could function at all naturally with our children if someone was sitting observing and making notes? It's inhuman. The skill lies in participating without interfering, and assessing without having to write everything down.

nightowl what did you mean about contact workers? That they aren't qualified SWs?

Yes, I think that, too, but it was the first programme and I'm hoping they will show how they deal with more complex and contentious issues during the series.