An Example of Oppressive Social Work

A judge in the criminal court compared social workers in Barnsley to the Nazis after rejecting a father's appeal against an offence of harassment here. The response from the council, in which it condemns the judge's 'distasteful' remarks and denies any wrongdoing, merely reveals the arrogance of social workers who believe they are above criticism. If the Chief Social Worker does not respond constructively to this shocking example of poor social work practice I cannot help feeling that social work as a profession is losing its credibility.

Social work intervention with the 6 year old girl in the above case was conducted in a way which was insensitive to the difficulties which the family was facing. The profession may claim that social workers are trained to integrate the caring and controlling aspects of their role to promote the child's best interests but in Barnsley this did not happen.

As often happens in safeguarding work social workers were not clear with the girl's father about the extent and limits of their legal powers during their involvement with the family. Their safeguarding intervention included an investigative element and a decision was made that the child should undergo an intimate medical examination. The father co-operated and no evidence of abuse was found. However, in hindsight, it is apparent that the need for this examination was based on the flimsiest of information about the risk of abuse.

Worse still, the father's concerns about the actions of social workers and his expressions of anger towards the school triggered criminal proceedings which resulted in him being found guilty of harassing the headteacher. While the school had a duty to inform children's services of their concerns a more humane response from social workers would have been helpful. It was known that the girl's mother had committed suicide just ten weeks after giving birth, due to postnatal depression.

Clearly, lessons have not been learned from the Cleveland Report (1988) which looked at the way medical examinations of children were used to diagnose sexual abuse and the over-zealous response of social workers. It appears that Barnsley social workers over-reacted to the school's concerns without understanding the broader context of the family circumstances. As a consequence there was an abuse of power due to inter-agency safeguarding arrangements being applied in an insensitive way.

When Judge Robert More referred to the Nazis he was probably trying to show some sympathy for the father. The social work profession should lighten up a little and listen to the discourse of people who share the judge's concerns about oppressive social work practice.

However, this case raises serious questions about whether social workers understand the difference between a voluntary service to children in need and the statutory duty to carry out a child protection investigation under section 47 of the 1989 Children Act. The social work profession has much practice wisdom in this area and authorities should carry out this legal duty with sensitivity and respect and in a proportionate and lawful manner.

There is an ethical imperative on the profession to address the problems revealed by this case. I suggest that the notion of accreditation of social workers should focus on raising standards of practice in section 47 enquiries and reducing the stress on parents when child protection concerns are investigated.

Hilary Searing

Return to Barefoot Social Worker