Keeping the Neglected Child in Focus in Child Protection...

Keeping the Neglected Child in Focus in Child Protection Conferences

Helen Richardson Foster ‘Child Welfare, Children’s Rights and Family Support: Tensions and Possibilities’, 27 January 2015 h.richardson-foster@sheffield.ac.uk

The challenge of Child Protection Conferences

Group dynamics

Consensus

Multi-agency work

Limited research

Planning

Family participation

Right forum for analysis?

The Challenge of neglect conferences

• Multi-factorial

• Practitioner domain

• Start again syndrome

• Rule of optimism

• Incident driven

• Neglect most difficult for practitioners

• Parents more likely to be difficult to engage

Information shared

CHILD Safeguard & promote

welfare

Health

Education

Emotional/ behavioural

Guidance & boundaries

Family functioning Wider family Income Employment Community resources

Identity

Self-care skills

Social presentation

FAMILY & ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Discussion of daily life

Concerns Family engagement

Dis

cu

ss

ion

of

da

ily

lif

e

Low Historical Parents did not attend conference

High - Anti social behaviour

Safety

Intensive family work

‘Baby only’

Older children

Age

Large sibling groups

• More time

• Less time for planning

• Focus on older children with difficulties

• More practitioners

• Many reports

Representation of children’s views • Children’s participation in conferences

• Work with children prior to conference

• Representation of views in reports

Parents

Non attendance

Avoidance

Dominating needs

Naming neglect

• “I think, well, it’s better if it’s spelt out, because it’s just a word that people put their own interpretation on and I think you know it is quite hurtful to hear, you’re neglecting your kids.” (Chair 6)

Planning

• Limited time for discussion in conference

• Styles of planning styles : - parent-focused (7/14) - no concerns (3/14) - child focused (4/14)

• Roles of the Chair and the core group

References

Bell, M. 1996b. Why some conferences are difficult: a study of the professionals' experience of some initial child protection conferences. Children & Society, 10, 51-63.

Bell, M. (1999). Child Protection: Families and the Conference Process, Aldershot, Ashgate.

Brandon, M., S. Bailey, et al. (2009). Understanding Serious Case Reviews and their Impact. London, Department for children, schools and families: 146. Brandon, M., Glaser D., et al (2014) Missed Opportunities: Indicators of Neglect - What is Ignored, Why, and What Can Be Done? London: Department for Education CM 5730 2003. The Victoria Climbié Inquiry Report. London: The Stationery Office. Farmer, E. and M. Owen (1995). Child Protection Practice: Private risks and public remedies. A study of decision-making, intervention and outcome in child protection work. London, HMSO. Farmer, E. & Lutman., E (2012). Effective Working with Neglected Children and their Families. London, Jessica Kingsley.

References /2

Harlow, E. and S. Shardlow (2006). "Safeguarding children: challenges to the effective operation of core groups." Child & Family Social Work 11(1): 65- 72. Horwath, J. (2007). Child Neglect Identification and Assessment. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Horwath, J. (2013). Child Neglect: Planning and intervention. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Ofsted (2014) In the Child's Time: Professional Responses to Neglect. London

Ofsted (2011) The Voice of the Child: Learning Lessons from Serious Case Reviews. Manchester: Ofsted.

Ofsted (2010). Learning Lessons From Serious Case Reviews 2009–2010: Ofsted’s evaluation of serious case reviews from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010. Manchester: Ofsted. The Lord Laming (2009) The Protection of Children in England: A progress report. London: The Stationery Office.

Keeping the Neglected Child in Focus in Child Protection Conferences

Helen Richardson Foster ‘Child Welfare, Children’s Rights and Family Support: Tensions and Possibilities’, 27 January 2015

Session Overview

• Child Protection Conferences in Cases of Neglect

• Making Sense of The Child’s Lived Experience, a PhD study

• How do the findings relate to your practice?

The challenge of Child Protection Conferences

Group dynamics

Consensus

Multi-agency work

Limited research

Planning

Family participation

Right forum for analysis?

Child protection plans

• Vague actions: what is an outline plan?

• Lack of clarity regarding timescales

• Negotiable and non-negotiable

• Focus of plan: (Horwath, 2013, Harlow and Shardlow, 2006; Farmer and Lutman, 2010, Munro, 2011; Davies and Ward, 2012).

The Challenge of neglect conferences

• Multi-factorial

• Practitioner domain

• Start again syndrome

• Rule of optimism

• Incident driven

• Neglect most difficult for practitioners

• Parents more likely to be difficult to engage

Making Sense of the Child’s Lived Experience in Cases of Neglect

Background

‘the child is a person and not an object of concern’ (Dame Bulter-Sloss, CM 412, 1988 p245)

failure of workers to “assemble and analyse information …..through the eyes of the child” (Lord Laming CM 5730, 2003 4.189, p69)

…too often the focus on the child was lost; adequate steps were not taken to establish the wishes and feelings of children and young people; and their voice was not heard sufficiently. (Ofsted, 2011)

• Who shares what information about a child and their family at a child protection conference?

• To what extent is information about parenting capacity, context and issues explored in relation to the developmental needs of the child?

• What difference is there to the quality of information about individual children and their lived experience if more than one child in the family is discussed at the conference?

• How has information been obtained and presented about the child’s experience, wishes and feelings?

Research Questions

• If the child is present at the conference, to what extent are they given a voice?

• To what extent do conference members provide information about the day in the life of the child?

• What information is used to inform the content of the child protection plan?

• What promoters and inhibitors do the workforce identify in relation to maintaining a child focus?

Research Questions /2

Methodology

1. Conference data

Audio recording and documentary analysis.

Conferences with neglect as main

concern/category

14 : 3 ICPCs, 11 reviews

In 1 LSCB area

2. Interviews with conference staff

Conference chairs, managers, minute takers and their

supervisors

26: 9 chairs, 13 minute takers, 2 managers,

2 supervisors

In 2 LSCB areas

3. Focus groups

Staff from all agencies who attend

conferences

6 groups: 35 participants

In 2 LSCB areas

Conference data sample /1

Conference Type 11 reviews, 3 initial conferences Review: 3- 24 months, average of 9.5 mo

Family type: 6 ‘baby only’ conferences 5 large families of 4+ children

Family attendance: 12 mothers, 5 fathers, 3 teenage children

Practitioners: 2 - 13, average of 10

Length: 35min -2 h 8 min, average 1 h 17 min

Conference data sample /2

All previously known to Children’s Social Care

Predominantly White British

Parents: domestic violence, drug and alcohol use, mental health difficulties, learning difficulties, physical health

Children: Autism, offending

What information is shared in conferences?

Information shared

CHILD Safeguard & promote

welfare

Health

Education

Emotional/ behavioural

Guidance & boundaries

Family functioning Wider family Income Employment Community resources

Identity

Self-care skills

Social presentation

FAMILY & ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Discussion of daily life

Concerns Family engagement

Dis

cu

ss

ion

of

da

ily

lif

e

Low Historical Parents did not attend conference

High - Anti social behaviour

Safety

Intensive family work

‘Baby only’

Older children

Age

Large sibling groups

• More time

• Less time for planning

• Focus on older children with difficulties

• More practitioners

• Many reports

Exercise 1: 5 minutes

• What strategies do you have to ensure good information sharing about individual children at conferences?

• How could you incorporate more information about the child’s daily life?

Family participation in Conferences and the focus on the child

Representation of children’s views • Children’s participation in conferences

• Work with children prior to conference

• Representation of views in reports

Parents

• Practitioners’ views:

Sometimes the parents get so locked in to, particularly on initial conferences, into the battle with professionals to prove their innocence etc. that actually they don’t want to talk about the child at all so I think it’s more often the parents that divert away from the child. (Chair 3)

Parents

Non attendance

Avoidance

Dominating needs

Naming neglect

• “I think, well, it’s better if it’s spelt out, because it’s just a word that people put their own interpretation on and I think you know it is quite hurtful to hear, you’re neglecting your kids.” (Chair 6)

Exercise 2: 5 minutes

• Do the findings resonate with your experience?

• How do you manage the needs of parents whilst keeping the child at the centre of discussion in conferences?

The Child Protection Plan & Planning in Conferences

Planning

• Limited time for discussion in conference

• Styles of planning styles : - parent-focused (7/14) - no concerns (3/14) - child focused (4/14)

• Roles of the Chair and the core group

Exercise 3: 5 minutes

• Have you encountered different approaches or styles of planning in conference?

• How can you create more child-focused plans?

In Summary

Summary Exercise: 5 minutes

• What are the three main points you have gained from this morning?

H.Richardson-foster@sheffield.ac.uk

References

Bell, M. 1996b. Why some conferences are difficult: a study of the professionals' experience of some initial child protection conferences. Children & Society, 10, 51-63.

Bell, M. (1999). Child Protection: Families and the Conference Process, Aldershot, Ashgate.

Brandon, M., S. Bailey, et al. (2009). Understanding Serious Case Reviews and their Impact. London, Department for children, schools and families: 146. Brandon, M., Glaser D., et al (2014) Missed Opportunities: Indicators of Neglect - What is Ignored, Why, and What Can Be Done? London: Department for Education CM 5730 2003. The Victoria Climbié Inquiry Report. London: The Stationery Office. Farmer, E. and M. Owen (1995). Child Protection Practice: Private risks and public remedies. A study of decision-making, intervention and outcome in child protection work. London, HMSO. Farmer, E. & Lutman., E (2012). Effective Working with Neglected Children and their Families. London, Jessica Kingsley.

References /2

Harlow, E. and S. Shardlow (2006). "Safeguarding children: challenges to the effective operation of core groups." Child & Family Social Work 11(1): 65- 72. Horwath, J. (2007). Child Neglect Identification and Assessment. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Horwath, J. (2013). Child Neglect: Planning and intervention. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Ofsted (2014) In the Child's Time: Professional Responses to Neglect. London

Ofsted (2011) The Voice of the Child: Learning Lessons from Serious Case Reviews. Manchester: Ofsted.

Ofsted (2010). Learning Lessons From Serious Case Reviews 2009–2010: Ofsted’s evaluation of serious case reviews from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010. Manchester: Ofsted. The Lord Laming (2009) The Protection of Children in England: A progress report. London: The Stationery Office.