Shambolic Social Work

A highly critical report of social work practice has been published by a judge about a private law case heard in November 2016. At the final hearing the dispute between the parents about the care of their 7 year old son was successfully resolved. However, serious concerns about the way the local authority had carried out its statutory duties were raised and the judge decided that details of malpractice in the section 47 investigation should be published on Bailii here.

This was a private law dispute between separated parents. Children's services should be very careful when it gets drawn into this type of situation. In this authority social work intervention actually made the boy's situation worse due to the fact that a narrow focus on 'policing' the family undermined good practice. This meant that the boy was prevented from seeing his father for 10 months. It is difficult to read the above report without coming to the conclusion that social work practice was totally shambolic.

The core facts in this case can be summarised in the following way. The boy’s parents had lived separately during much of his life. Over the years the high level of conflict between the couple had resulted in private law proceedings, including an appeal heard by the Court of Appeal, during which social workers, the police and other professionals were drawn into the situation. Eventually, the parents were granted what was then termed a 'Shared Residence Order'.

When the boy was 6 a section 47 investigation was initiated following concerns raised by a friend of the boy’s mother who claimed to have experience in child protection. She had phoned the boy's school and said she had overheard the boy talk about having massages with his father. However, the school was aware that the boy was awaiting a corrective medical procedure and that that his father, a medical professional, did massage him in connection with this condition.

The boy was interviewed in school by a police officer and a social worker and they concluded that nothing was disclosed to them that caused any concern about the boy's relationship with his father. When they communicated their assessment to the mother she was not happy with it and asked about stopping contact between the boy and his father. She then persuaded the police to see the boy again, despite suspicions that she had been asking him leading questions, and a video interview with the boy was conducted. The police report of the interview states that 'he did present in a very different manner compared to the previous interview at the school, his account changed numerous times and he failed to make any clear or concise disclosures.' It was therefore concluded that the video interview did not provide a strong foundation for assertions of sexually inappropriate behaviour by the father. The father was later formally interviewed and the police eventually decided there would be no further action.

On the same day as the video interview the mother applied to the court for a Prohibited Steps Order preventing the father from removing the boy from her care and this was granted. Three days later Children's Services held a Strategy Meeting and the meeting recommended the continuation of the section 47 investigation. Three other recommendations were made, namely that a 'Child and Family Assessment' (a section 17 assessment) should be completed, that an Initial Child Protection Conference should be held and that a working agreement should be entered into with the mother. The local authority then presented the mother with a written agreement which stated that 'the mother is to ensure that the father is to have no contact with the boy whilst the investigation is ongoing.' It did not explain what it meant by 'investigation' and indicated that the local authority would take 'further action' and 'legal advice' should the agreement not be adhered to. The Written Agreement was later cited by the mother at a hearing before a district judge as a reason why the boy could not see his father.

In terms of social work practice the approach to the section 47 investigation was deeply flawed. Obviously, organisational arrangements in this authority did not provide social workers with the role clarity that was necessary for carrying out this statutory duty. Apart from the failure to interview the father there was little understanding of the forensic requirements within the statutory role. For example, the controls provided by a written agreement should have been backed up by proper social work 'evidence' that this type of control was necessary.

The judge uncritically accepted the Strategy Meeting's recommendation to carry out a 'Child and Family Assessment'- which is is a service provided under section 17 to families on a voluntary basis. However, the mother had not indicated an interest in receiving a 'support service' - although she had appeared to be well briefed about the legal procedures. The motives of her friend in contacting the school should therefore have been treated with more scepticism by managers. If the mother had approached children's services herself there might have been some scope for engaging her in supportive work focusing on her son's developmental needs. However, in reality, it was inevitable that the section 17 assessment would turn out to be a pointless exercise. The strategy meeting decision that a section 17 assessment should be carried out seemed more about managers covering their backs than in thinking realistically about the barriers to informal, collaborative work with this family.

Any delay in completing the section 47 investigation is bad practice because it sends a message that concerns about the child are not being taken seriously. If there are serious concerns it is considered good practice to complete the initial investigation within 48 hours, so that a managerial decision can be made about whether the threshold for formal child protection measures has been met. It actually took two and a half weeks to complete the section 47 investigation in this case.

In the end the initial concerns about the father had receded and concerns had started to arise about the possibly that the mother had incited the allegations. However, the investigation ended without a coherent analysis of these concerns or whether they met the threshold of 'significant harm'. A managerial decision was made not to proceed to a Child Protection Conference - but with no explanation of why the written agreement was still continuing. The judge said that when the manager closed the case it was with the conclusion that the boy had been sexually abused, and he would be at risk from his father if he was to have contact.

To summarise, the local authority's management of the section 47 investigation was deeply flawed. There was insufficient urgency in holding the strategy meeting, a poorly conceived written agreement that disregarded the legal position of the parents, inconsistency in decisions relating to the child's safety and an outcome that fudged the issues about risk. The fact that the parents were not informed of the outcome of the section 47 investigation is not surprising considering how shoddy it was. This case suggests that it may be ‘custom and practice’ in some councils to issue written agreements as a stock response to any child protection concerns.

The local authority has a statutory duty to act in the best interests of the child. Fortunately, when the court made a section 37 direction seven months later matters were finally resolved and contact between the boy and his father resumed. However, it should have been apparent much earlier, when the section 47 enquiry began, that this little boy was in a very difficult situation - being at the centre of ongoing parental disputes. The Family Court had brought some stability into his circumstances and managers should have been sensitive to the fact that any intervention from them might disturb the delicate balance that had been achieved by the court.

It is definitely good practice to hold the Strategy Meeting before making contact with the family. Careful consideration should always be given to how to conduct the police investigation in order to avoid repeated interviews of the child. The social work investigation requires social workers who are experienced and appropriately trained. Ideally, investigative interviews with family members should be conducted by social workers working in pairs because this is more likely to produce a balanced assessment.

The judge suggested that an Initial Child Protection Conference should have been held because it would have led to a more balanced understanding of the available evidence. However, once the police had decided there was no evidence for a criminal prosecution, managers could have carefully considered all the information available, based on an in-depth assessment of the family dynamics, and reached decisions without the need for a child protection conference. A strategy of containment of the family's difficulties would have been helpful in this case, plus a refusal to let social workers become pawns in the ongoing battle between the parents.

The above case raises some very serious questions about social work practice. Why did it take so long to complete the section 47? Why did social workers ask the mother to sign a written agreement? Why was the assessment deeply flawed? Over the past 25 years much of the professional knowledge and wisdom in carrying out section 47 investigations has largely disappeared from training. Unfortunately, this means that in some authorities shallowness and rigid thinking have become institutionalized within the bureaucratic organisation. Also, the huge workload pressures on children's services gives rise to a tendency to seek quick-fix solutions to problems instead of supporting social workers in the difficult task of assessing risk and protecting children.

The Solution

There has been a lot of over-promising of what social workers can achieve but the priority in children's services must be to work with children at serious risk and in greatest need and to perform statutory duties lawfully. Unfortunately, many social workers and managers are incapable of understanding the complexities of the legal framework within which they operate and their interventions fail to strike the right balance between care and control.

While Ofsted expresses concern that many authorities in England are 'inadequate' in their child protection work it seems at a loss to know what to do about this. The above case illustrates the way that bad social work practice can result in the failure to protect the rights of a child to see his father. Ofsted should therefore take appropriate action with this authority.

There is an urgent need to improve practice in carrying out section 47 enquiries in the worst performing authorities. I suggest the setting up of a unit at arms length from the local authority to carry out section 47 enquiries. This team would act as the lead agency in decision-making with regard to investigations and conferences. Splitting off the social work function of ‘policing’ from other types of social work would provide a new opportunity to clarify roles, develop staff expertise, and provide training which is more focused on staff need. Improving the competence of social work practice at the formal, investigative stage would also allow children's services to develop a clearer focus on informal, safeguarding work of a preventative and supportive nature.

Hilary Searing