Information
AI Chat

Children and families essay[ 7456]

In this essay I will be exploring and analysing how recent law and pol...

Module

Social Work with Children and Families (SS3011)

9 Documents

Students shared 9 documents in this course

University

The Robert Gordon University

Academic year: 2017/2018

Uploaded by:

Rachael Adam

The Robert Gordon University

0followers

20Uploads

50upvotes

Comments

Please sign in or register to post comments.

EP
ELIZABETH3 months ago
Very helpful, and I enjoyed reading it

Related Studylists

Children and the law report samples my 3rd year

Preview text

1506467 Children and families essay Word count- 3082 14/05/18 Social Work with Children and Families SS3011 BA (Hons) Social Work 3rd year Dave Humphrey Children and families essay Introduction In this essay I will be exploring and analysing how recent law and policy effect child protection within social work, such as: Children (Scotland) Act 1995, Children’s hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 and the Getting It Right For Every Child framework. I will also be defining a social workers role within the children’s hearing system, as well as their essential communication and cooperation with other professionals within the child protection system, in order to carry out effective practice. Law and social policy “Child protection means protecting a child from child abuse or neglect. Abuse or neglect need not have taken place; it is sufficient for a risk assessment to have identified a likelihood or risk of significant harm from abuse or neglect” (Scottish Government, 2014). The most imperative law that underpins all work carried out with children and families within Social Work is the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Part one of the act defines parental rights and responsibilities. Parental responsibilities include the responsibility to: hearings has been replaced by the introduction of the Children’s hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, which came into force in June 2013. The Children’s hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 defines the three overarching principles for any children’s hearing: “Section 25- the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child throughout the child's childhood as the paramount consideration Section 27- (with consideration of the child’s age and maturity level) (a) give the child an opportunity to indicate whether the child wishes to express the child's views (b) if the child wishes to do so, give the child an opportunity to express them (c) have regard to any views expressed by the child Section 28/29- The sheriff may make, vary, continue or extend the order or interim variation or grant the warrant, only if the sheriff considers that it would be better for the child if the order, interim variation or warrant were in force than not” (Children’s hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, on gov). This act also defines reasonable grounds of referral for children’s hearings (section 67), explains what goes on at a pre-hearing panel (section 7982), defines relevant persons (section 200) and identifies all possible outcomes of a hearing (Children hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, on gov). Part one of the Children (Scotland) act is extremely important to child protection work within social work as it defines the most basic parental rights and responsibilities which help to define whether a child is being appropriately looked after or not (Wilson and James, 2007). As outlined in section a) and b) of parental responsibilities and section b) of parental rights, a social worker can use their knowledge of child development to determine if they believe the child is being looked after properly and at a high enough standard to enable them to reach their developmental milestones- and, if not, then they can use this as a reason for grounds of referral for a children’s hearing. As, under part a of section 67 of the Children’s hearings (Scotland) act 2011, it defines a reason for grounds of referral as: “the child is likely to suffer unnecessarily, or the health or development of the child is likely to be seriously impaired, due to a lack of parental care” (Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011). However, part two of the act is not as useful because it is quite outdated and, as mentioned previously, a lot of the information has been replaced and updated in the Children’s hearings (Scotland) act 2011. The Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 is also highly significant to child protection work within social work as it protects and promotes the right of the child in a children’s hearing (Hothersall, 2014). Through the overarching principles defined in section 25 and 27, it defines the need to keep the welfare of the child paramount at all times when making (GIRFEC). GIRFEC first came into play in 2005 and has been updated and amended right up to this current day. Focusing on this vision for Scotland, GIRFEC identified the well being indicators that every professional and practitioner who works directly with a child, can use to measure care and wellbeing, and identify any concerns (GIRFEC, 2005). The well being indicators are: Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Responsible, Respected and Included. This concept helps to ensure the appropriate provision and implementation of help and support for children in Scotland who sincerely need it. GIRFEC is absolutely critical to child protection work within social work as it sets a base for every agency within and out with social work, to work from, to help them to efficiently identify any child protection concerns. Social work practitioners in children’s services’ main role is to protect. So, similarly to the overarching principles outlined in the Children’s hearings (Scotland) act 2011, these practitioners can use the wellbeing indicators defined in GIRFEC, along with their own knowledge and theory to practice, to identify any doubt in relation to child protection (Munro, 2007). It is not just GIRFEC that impacts on child protection work within social work, but actually any law, policy or framework put in place by the government. The UK government grants its citizens the right to a private family life, within article 8 of the Human Right’s Act 1998, therefore, social workers must have reason grounds to believe that a child is, or, will be, put in danger/risk of harm, if they do not intervene and arguably go against what is a basic human right (Ferguson, 2004). More specifically, in Scotland, government ideas and ideals for policies relating to child protection are built from a culturally specific approach, focused on means tested benefits and limited funding, resulting in universal services, such as social work becoming underfunded and unfocused. Therefore, the lack of funding has a direct impact on the type of services and the efficiency of services that social work can provide within child protection (Cooper, 2009). However, criticism of GIRFEC lies within its effectiveness on improving children’s lives in Scotland. Save the Children found that still more than a quarter of Scotland’s children and young people live in poverty (Save the children, 2018). It is proven that child who experience poverty early on in their lives are twice are likely to struggle with their education in the future. Now Scotland’s government highlights within their vision, a child’s right to a worthy education, however, save the children also found that poverty makes it more challenging for children to achieve their full potential within education, due to the lack of basic knowledge and support necessary (Save the children, 2018). Sadly, having such a barrier so early on in their life will only continue to disadvantage them as life goes on. So, there must be a flaw in the planning and implementation of GIRFEC if they are failing to meet the desired basic rights for children. Or could it may be, once again, a fault of finance. Although, it can be argued that the state protection of children aims to concentrate on families who are the most in need of it, the failure to protect and provide for these families can once again be blamed on poor funding and resources (Jones, 2002). It is important that the social worker writes a thorough report as the reporter will use this as a basis to form a referral for the hearing (referrals can also come from education and police, as well as social work). Present at the hearing are: the panel members (members of the local community who have undergone training), the reporter, the child themselves (unless they are excused, but otherwise it is their right to attend), the parents of the child along with any other relevant persons (in some cases they can be excluded, however), a legal representative for the child or parent and a safeguarder (Munro, 2011). Legally, no one else is allowed to attend a children’s hearing unless the chair considers that their attendance and participation essential for the proper consideration of the grounds of referral (for example, the family social worker, the child’s health visitor or the child’s school teacher) or if they are obliged under the procedural rule. Whilst social work holds a huge role in the writing of a report for a children’s hearing, it is every professional who comes into contact with that child’s responsibility to safeguard and protect them from significant harm (Munro, 2011). Significant harm is defined as: “Harm of a not minor, transient or superficial nature. It may be physical or emotional and will include developmental harm” (Norrie 1995). The average child will have contact with health and education, as these are premises that they are entitled too. However, some other children may also have contact with social work and the police, due to family or personal reasons. No matter which professionals a child comes into contact with, each professional alone can not create a full picture of that child’s situation and if their needs are being met efficiently. For child to receive early intervention at the right time then it is every professional’s responsibility to identify any apprehensions they may have about that child’s upbringing and follow through with action regarding this concern (Gillingham and Humphreys, 2010). Any professional with a concern about a child’s wellbeing and welfare is to place a referral to a children’s social work department or to a local authority service to ensure the right person is aware of the concerns. This involves effective communication and mutual respect among all professionals involved. (Gillingham and Humphreys, 2010). To achieve effective communication and collaboration, it is essential that every professional working with that family or child is aware what everyone’s role is in the process, especially their own. For example, for a children’s hearing, it usually police, social work or health professionals who make the referral. A forensic psychologist would then carry out an ‘interview’ with the child. “The investigative interview is a formal, planned interview with a child, carried out by staff trained and competent to conduct it, for the purposes of eliciting the child’s account of events (if any) which require investigation” (Scottish Government 2011). social care). This ties in with interprofessional working, as both professionals must collaborate efficiently for the successful provision of care (Whittington, 2003). Also, there have been recent changes to the organisation and structure of services, involving the creation of new departments. This means that sometimes different professionals might be sited in one greater administration together, such as a local authority. Therefore, cooperation will be subject to effective partnership and joint working by professionals. Although this allows for easier communication and better integration, there are still boundaries to be crossed. (Meads, 2005). It is also a good way to ensure a certain standard of care; collaboration among agencies has been encouraged since the 1960’s, however, recent government legislation and policy shows a strong desire for inter-agency working, in order to provide effective service. Case reviews has highlighted ineffective care to service users, caused by the failure of communication and cooperation among agencies and professionals, which flagged up the need for effective collaboration. Also, service users will have an expectation of the professionals that they come into contact with, to work well together for the sake of their wellbeing (Meads, 2005). Although it is definitely necessary in the provision for effective practice, it is not always easy. For example, there can be conflict between professionals about confidentiality and the need for sharing information; which can make it difficult to agencies to make certain decisions. This is evidence that it takes a lot of time and commitment from all professionals involved and is not a process that cannot happen overnight (Whittington, 2003). Understandably, there can be differences in points of view and opinions between professionals which can cause disagreements about the correct type of care for a service user. However, a decision must be made by all professionals, as according to Whittington (2007), poorly collaborated inter-agency working can restrain options available to service users, restrict availability of services and increase the level of risk. Therefore, positive inter agency and interprofessional working is an essential for social work practice. Conclusion Overall, I have evidenced the strong importance of the Children’s hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, as well as the GIRFEC national wellbeing indicators, for assisting social workers in the part that they have within child protection. This legislation and policy underpins the basic work that they do with children and is at the forefront of most of the decisions that they have to make. I have also evidenced social workers role within the group of professionals that work with children and families and have stressed the necessity for communication and cooperation among all professionals in order to successful safeguard a child. COOPER., A. 2009. Hearing the grass grow: Emotional and Epistemological challenges of practice-near research. Journal of Social Work Practice. Vol. 23, No. 4. FERGUSON., H. 2004. Protecting Children in Time: Child Abuse, Child Protection and the Consequences of Modernity. Basingstoke. Palgrave. GILLINGHAM, P. and HUMPHREYS, C., 2010. Child Protection Practitioners and Decision-Making Tools: Observations and Reflections from the Front Line. British Journal of Social Work. HOTHERSHALL, S., 2014. Social work with children, young people and their families in Scotland. 3rd edition. Sage. Exeter. JONES, C., (2002). Children, Class and the Threatening State. Sage. London. MEADS, G., 2005. The case for interprofessional collaboration in health and social care. Blackwell. MUNRO, E., 2007, Child Protection. Sage. London. MUNRO, E., 2008. Effective child protection. 2nd edition. Sage. London. MUNRO, E., 2011. The Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report. Accessed at gov/government/publications/munro-reviewof-child-protection-final-report-a-child-centred-system NORRIE, K. 1998. Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Sweet &amp;amp; Maxwell. England. WHITTINGTON, C., 2003. Learning for collaborative practice with other professions and agencies: a study to inform development of the degree in social work; summary report. Department of health. WILSON, K., JAMES, A., 2007. The child protection handbook: the practitioner's guide to safeguarding children. 3rd edition. Baillire Tindall. Edinburgh.

Was this document helpful?