Social Service Intervention Of Family Life

amicable Service Intervention Of Family LifeSocial go play a vital loving occasion in the foilion of cruelty to sisterren, and their routineions have been contr oversial in the past and get out lodge to be in the future. They have an immense amount of power in their r distributively and ar able to tear apart a loving family as well as economise an imperil babys life.The aim of this study is to prove the extent to which favorable realize should exercise their power in shape to fulfill the duties they owe to parliamentary law. In set up to explore this subject, it provide be necessary to critically analyse the pre existing regulation that has governed this argona, and study how the legality has evolved over the last century.It is an atomic number 18a of law that has and will continue to develop. There be similarly major problems within the social service organisation itself, much(prenominal) as underfunding and operative staff shortages, and it will be nece ssary to analyse and critique its current effectiveness done the use of a number of identifys.Whilst the lack of resources is undoubtedly affecting the effectiveness of the social worker, late reports in the media have suggested that in that location is a vast amount of bullying and degrading treatment within the cheek itself. A case highlighted is that ofSubstantial changes have been necessary in the law surrounding electric razor rib over the past century as high profile and prolific cases of neglect have been brought to the solicitude of the public by use of the media.This is a necessary argona of study due to the fact that cases are continuing to come to light. The recent case of Khyra IshaqChapter One Background to the Children second 1989A common cornerstone that follow throughms to occur throughout history is that it takes a major event to shock the nation in nightclub for dramatic change to occur within the law, rather than the law changing in come out to keep on much(prenominal) occurrences in the first place.During the 1980s, maestros were becoming increasingly aware of the existence of claw smear in society as a result of cases such as those of Jasmine Beckford and Tyra Henley. Jasmine Beckford had previously been primed(p) in the complaint of Brent Social Services for a utmost of two years prior to her death. However, she had only been seen by a social worker once during a period of ten months, and was left in the hands of her stepfather who battered and starved her, consequently resulting in her death at the age of four years old. management put ups for electric razorren at risk were first introduced in The Children and Young Persons dissemble 1932. Previously, at that place was precious little regulation available to nurture children in use up. This was a substantial addition to the law and given(p) shield to children who were experiencing abuseThe Children and Young Persons make a motion 1933 was the first attemp t in statute in govern to curtail the personal effects of child abuse and make it exempt the obligations and duties of a flushr. Part 1 of the Act details the role of the parent that a child is deemed to be neglected in a matter likely to draw injury to his health if he has failed to provide food, clothing, medical aid or lodging for him, or if, having been ineffective to otherwise provide has failed to take steps to procure it to be provided under the enactments applicable in that relief. In addition to this, the statute withal states that it is the responsibility of the dally to check the welfare of an ill-use child by taking proper steps for removing him from undesirable surroundings, and for securing that proper provision is do for his education and training.According to lord Diplock, under the 1933 Act, the parent must neglect the child intending, or at least foreseeing, that the probable issue of neglect is that the child will suffer injury to his health. This st atement grounds confusion in cases that involve neglect, however. It is clear that the 1933 Act places great immensity over how the offence was committed and whether it was wilful and deliberate.One of the failings of the act is that it gives abundant discretion to the motor lodges in protecting ill-treated children and gives them no direction whatsoever in making such a life impacting judgement. More investigation into the circumstances and pauperisms of those at risk was needed in roll to find a suitable home for such children, and the tourist courts did non have the knowledge or abilities to re-house them.The case of Dennis ONeill highlighted the failings of the 1933 Act and brought nurture radical change to the law surrounding child abuse. Dennis, in concert with his younger brothers were taken into the fright of their local authority on the grounds that they needed attention. He died afterwardward existence taken into foster headache and was found by a pathologi st to be undernourished and physically abused. Dennis ONeill was subjected to horrific attacks at the hands of his foster parents and these attacks took place on a regular basis.This case surprise the public and political write in codes, who were particularly alarmed to find out that the foster father, Mr Gough, had been cognise to the practice of law and had a conviction for violence. It was therefore deemed necessary for a public enquiry to be held in indian lodge to retard the exact failings made by the regimen involved, and it blamed the two local councils that transmitt with the case.It was evident that the provisions of the 1933 Act were vastly inadequate in their role of egis and that major change to this area was needed. With this in mind, the Children Act 1948 established a Childrens Committee in each local authority to carry out the functions exact in The Children and Young Persons Act 1933. A Childrens officer also had to be appointed who had relevant pick up and be upholded by an adequate number of staff. In effect, this Act established social service as it divulged responsibility away from the courts and placed it with the local authority.The Childrens Committee was supposedly staffed by those who had experience with children and would be able to cater to their needs and find them new homes where they would be loved and carefulnessd for effectively. However, events over the past 40 years have shown that the there is a great level of tryingy in providing effective aegis for children at risk.Following Jasmine Beckford were foster shocking cases of child abuse that displayed obvious neglect by social services, and this led to a difficult period for workers in this profession, who were unsure as to which approach to take upon traffic with children at risk. A balance was clearly needed, and enough selective information had to be acquired quickly in order to determine whether to remove a child from their home, which could have devasta ting consequences upon family life if the risks of abuse were unsubstantiated.the threat of child abuse appeared to be on the increasing. The John Patten Guidelines were released in order to provide professionals with advice during a period of unrest with regards to child neglect.The Cleveland s jackpotdal of 1987 shocked the nation to the core, and led to further changes and major additions to the law in the form of the Children Act 1989. This case differed in that it was an example of the state causing the abuse to the infants rather than their parents or guardians. A total of 121 children were diagnosed as organism sexually abused by Dr Marietta Higgs and her assistant Dr Geoffrey Wyatt. Together, they used a controversial and unproven test known as RAD reflex anal dilation. Children had to undergo an invasive and degrading test on their buttocks, and the memories of which have scarred some for life. A girl who was taken into care after being diagnosed with RAD continued to have nightmares about her ordeal twenty years after the event, and claims that the two doctors ruined her childhood.The children diagnosed under Dr Higgs regime were removed from loving families and placed into care, whilst in some cases the parents were displace to prison. This had devastating results, and destroyed happy families. Even once the parents had been cleared by the courts of any wrong doing, many felt reluctant to show their children affection once they had been returned.The Children Act 1989 originates from two reports. In 1984, the Parliamentary study Committee on the social services recommended that the organisation should enable a re raft of child law to take place. This led to the formation of a government committee known as the Child cope Law Review who produced a report titled Review of Child Care Law. During the same period of time, the Department for Health and Social Security carried out a review of the law relating to child care and made a number of recommend ations relating to child care, foster homes and child minding. Most of these recommendations were accepted in to a government white paper regarding child care and these proposals were brought before Parliament as part of the Children Bill. sulfur Chapter Provisions of the Children Act 1989 and the legislation in practiceThe Children Act 1989 brought major change to the law regarding child abuse, and introduced a number of new principles to the legal system. Its main priority was protecting the welfare of the child, which was granted prevailing importance in any dispute over care or parentage of an infant.The 1989 Act give tongue to that it was the responsibility of the local authority to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child that was in need within the area, and must provide a range and level of services appropriate to those childrens need. Therefore, social services must be sufficiently staffed and have a reasonable amount of funding in order to fulfil its role. Whilst considering a childs welfare, their feelings and wishes must be taken into consideration together with any effect remotion will have upon the family including the parents. The Act gave further guidance to local authorities once they had taken the child into care, and their duties and responsibilities in ensuring the welfare of the child is maintained. The local authority has a responsibility to house any child taken into care in a healthy environment, and ensure that the wishes of the child are taken into cover when making such decisions. It was therefore not always best to remove the child from their home if oblige could be provided in the form of monetary relief in order to sustain the childs welfare.In order to keep a child with its family, it was made clear that those in need of safeguard together with their families should be provideed support under part three of the Children Act. Only when voluntary methods of helping are unable to protect those at risk should the powers under parts four and five be used. According to June Thoburn and Ann Lewis in alliance with parents of children in need of protection, these powers should only be used when actual or suspected significant injury or likely significant impairment is at risk.A positive element of the 1989 Act is the constitution of the Family Assistance Order, which granted support to families experiencing a difficult change such as divorce and separations in order for the child in question to live with its family. However, this order is only to be used in exceptional circumstances and consent must be obtained from each person involved with the order. An order of this good-hearted would provide an example of the state providing a positive intervention into family life. Unfortunately, as it can only be used in exceptional circumstances, a Family Assistance Order is granted rarely despite the benefits it could potentially afford a family in need.In addition to the Children and Young Persons Act 193 3, the 1989 Act gave further interpretation as to what a child in need is. It states that a child should be taken into care if he is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or have the opportunity to achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision of him of services by a local authority. Furthermore, a child whose health could be impaired without the intervention of social services should be taken into care. This also extends to disabled children.If social services believe that a child is in danger of significant wound, they are entitled under a new provision of the 1989 Act to seek a child judgement order( CAO). The courts must be satisfied that the applicant has reasonable cause to suspect the child is at risk, that the judgement will be able to determine to what extent that risk applies, and that the applicant will not be able to carry out such sound judgment without an order being madeIf the risk of harm is deemed to be an immediate d anger to the child, an emergency protection order (EPO) can be applied for. contradictory the CAO which is a non-urgent remedy, the EPO is an order which enables a child to be restrained in or removed to a place in order to protect their welfare.The court is only likely to make such an order if they are satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to sustain significant harm if not removed to accommodation by the local authority or does not remain in the place they are currently being accommodated in. Whereas a CAO order needs the belief of the applicant, an EPO requires the court to be satisfied that the child is in danger, and they will therefore sufficient evidence will need to be provided to convince the courts of this and that urgent action is needed. Whilst the above orders whitethorn seem to contradict the principle that a child is best cared for at home, the orders must be carried out with this element in mind. Therefore, a child should not b e removed from parental care longer then is strictly necessary and can be returned home even if the EPO is still in force.As well as the above orders, the court can also make care and supervision orders in order to ensure protection of a child in need. These may only be made if the court is satisfied that the child refer is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made. However, as the courts are under a duty to promote the upbringing of a child with its family, local authorities are under duty to fully explore alternative methods before applying for an order to be made under this Act. Furthermore, the welfare checklist must also be adhered to for an order to be made. Whilst the wishes and feelings of a child may have some influence, they will not override any of the other provisions of the welfare checklist, and the courts will need to assess whether the child is of the maturity to make any judgment at all.The 1989 Act makes discernible the courts intention that a child is best cared for at home with their families. However, whether this is the most suitable option is surely a major issue in society, and is very much dependent upon the circumstances surrounding each individual case. It is arguable that the Act should not place emphasis on this belief as professionals who hap this rule and take the childs wishes into account could come to a conclusion that is not in the best interests of the child. It places social workers in the mindset that taking a child into care is not in the best interests of the child, and this could perhaps provide an explanation as to why further horrific cases have occurred interest the Cleveland scandal.Residential family centres were also created by the 1989 Act which acknowledgeed social workers to assess the relationship between the family outside of the marital home. The par ents stay at the centre for a period of time with the children and are assessed by social services as to how clear they are in their role. Parents are also given the help and guidance they need in order to look after them.The Children Act 1989 acknowledges that the relationship between the local authorities is of great importance when dealings with a child in need, and they must act in partnership. The Act places a duty on the relevant children agencies to provide information and assistance to the local authorities and also places them under duty to assist with the care plan formulated in respect of children. Following the Cleveland examination, it was apparent that the relationship between the relevant authorities was lacking, and the 1989 Act appears to acknowledge and remedy this situation by placing them under duty to act in order to safeguard children.In order for a child to remain with their family during a difficult period, a service was established under the 1989 Act that was provided to the child in order to meet their needs in all aspects. Parents need to receive help in bringing up their children if they experience difficulties rather than taking them straight into care. This is a useful addition for professionals, as it gives them the opportunity to assess the family in a divergent environment and also provide help and guidance to a family in need.There are arguments to suggest that the removal of a child from their home can be mitigated by providing frequent access, and that there must be a presumption that a parent will be able to see their child unless they have acted in such a way that makes contact heavily detrimental for them. However, this could potentially cause distress and upset to a child who has experienced abuse, and may also distort their on-key wishes and feelings. Access was denied to the parents and carers in the Cleveland scandal.Further developments arrived in favour of care the child with its family from the European Courts of valet de chambre Rights and the human being Rights Act, In particular, article 8 the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. Article 8 offers protection for a persons family life from arbitrary interference by the state. This right was framed extremely broadly. However, this is a satisfactory right which means that there can be an interference with a persons family life providing it is lawful, serves a real purpose, is necessary in a democratic society and is not deemed to be discriminatory.Whilst Article 8 may appear to be restrictive upon social workers, one could argue that they must be able to relinquish their actions before intervening in a family environment, and certain aspects of privacy must be upheld. A recent case highlighted this aspect, as social workers placed a CCTV monitoring system in the bedroom of a couple with learning difficulties in order to determine whether they were fit parents. This forced the couple to cite the Huma n Rights Act in order for the surveillance to be removed.Chapter Three Failings of the Act Victoria Climbie and Baby P,The Children Act 1989 was not a cure for child abuse, and cases continued to come to light for many years after the implementation of the Act.Arguments exist to suggest that the aim of the 1989 Act for children to remain in their families is incorrect when dealing with those that are severely abused. There is much emphasis on professionals to work with the family and improve the level of care they offer in parenting. This places social workers under compact to work therapeutic miracles with the family, and failure to do so makes their seam harder to carry out. Social workers were expected to work in partnership with families who were often uncooperative and unwilling to allow them access into their family, and the law itself placed the families under no obligation to be honest and work with them. order of magnitude did not make them feel empowered to act on thei r powers and make calls for action.Furthermore, it was far more difficult for social workers to obtain a care order then it was prior to the 1989 Act being implemented. Social workers needed a higher level of evidence in order to satisfy a court that a care order was appropriate, and they had to return to the courts for scrutiny in order to make any decision. As a result of this, social workers were more likely to carry out a lengthy assessment of a child at risk rather than immediately remove them from their home. It took a great deal of time to carry out the necessary assessments and apply to the courts, the child at risk was often in a more abused state by the time they had reached care and this was obviously not in the childs best interests. To some extent, this goes against the welfare principles as stated in the 1989 Act, and is somewhat contradictory. There is also a great amount of expense involved when applying to the court, and as a result of this, social workers were unde r pressure to carry out their assessments extensively and leaving the child in a potentially harmful environment for a longer period of time.The Children Act 1989 to some extent gave social workers an excuse when failing to act in a case of child abuse. It could be argued that this was the case with Rikki Neave, whose drug addicted mother had repeatedly called social services for help, and had even asked them to take her son away into care. She had abused her son by fervent him, throwing him across the room, and had even told a social worker that she would kill her children if they were not taken from her. Social services failed to remove the child from his mothers care and he was found dead. Theoretically, social services could argue in their confession that they complied with the 1989 Act with regards to keeping the child with its family, and that they needed to compile an assessment in order to be granted a care order by the courts.In 1991, there were a total of 60,000 children in care. This figure had fallen dramatically to 40,000 by 1995. This decline in figures shows the effects that the Children Act 1989 had on the number of children in care, and could perhaps be viewed as a positive result of the Acts implementation. However, it could also be argued that the number of children being abused had not reduced so significantly, and therefore there were simply more children living at risk.The provisions of the Children Act 1989 were not enough to prevent the failure of professionals to safeguard Victoria Climbie, and this case of fearful abuse was brought to public knowledge after her death in 2000. It is clear from this case that despite the legislation in place to deal with child abuse, it was the authorities themselves who acted negligently and failed to act on their duties as small in the 1989 Act.Haringey social services were made aware of Climbie after her first admittance to hospital. The doctors warned social services of her injuries as a precaut ionary measure, but the social workers assigned to the case failed to take adequate measures to study how the injuries had occurred. An inexperienced social worker had been assigned to Climbie, and despite her making two visits to the family home, she failed to realise that her carers were putting on an act and the child was in grave danger.Social services were yet again alerted to Climbie after her aunty reported her partner for sexually abusing the infant. However, she later dropped the allegations. Social workers had a meeting and decided to make further contact with the family, but failed to take the adequate steps needed in order to do so. aft(prenominal) making three visits, a social worker reported that the family had most likely returned to France, and the case was unsympathetic on the same day that Climbie died.There were a number of organizations that were involved with Victoria Climbie prior to her death. Climbie was known to local authorities, including Haringey, Eal ing, Brent and Enfield. She was also known to three housing departments and two hospitals, two Metropolitan jurisprudence child protection teams and a centre run by the NSPCC. It could only be concluded that there was a complete lack of communication between the agencies, despite the Children Act 1989 placing emphasis on the importance of agencies working together and sharing informationIn total, social services missed twelve chances to save Victoria Climbie. The Victoria Climbie Inquiry found that there was a total absence of good professional practice. The interventions that should have occurred would not have required any exceptional skill and neither would it have placed heavy demands upon the staff involved. It is therefore evident that the failures of the services to act in this case represented heavy professional misconduct.As will be detailed in chapter four, further legislation arose from the Victoria Climbie inquiry, with shaper Lamings report making a total of 108 reco mmendations for fundamental change to the way social care, healthcare and police child protection services are organised and managed at a national and local scale. The report led to the foundation of the every(prenominal) Child Matters programme together with the Children Act 2004.Haringey council found themselves in solicitude once again when the baby Peter case occurred in 2007. Baby P sustained over 50 injuries during an eight month period and had been on Haringey councils child protection register throughout this time. His family had been seen a total of 60 times by agencies including social workers from the council.Baby P was first removed from his mothers care after he was taken into hospital with severe bruising, and the paediatrician judged that the injuries were not likely to have been accidental. She wrote in his notes that he should not be allowed home, and a police protection order should be sought if necessary. He was discharged and placed informally in the care of a family friend whilst social workers and police investigated the cause of his injuries. This resulted in Baby Ps mother being arrested and the toddler was put on the child protection register.He returned back to the care of his mother a month later and she promised to support with social workers and ensure she cared for her baby in order for his named to be removed from the register. However, she continued to neglect her son and her partner abused the baby. Baby P was taken into care in April 2007 but was released back to his mother once he had the all clear from the hospital. His mother continued to deceive professionals into allowing her to keep the baby and tried to conceal further injuries by smearing chocolate over his face.Senior police officials decided that Baby P should not be allowed to live with his family, and sought legal advice to see whether he could be taken into care, but staggeringly, Haringey councils lawyers decided that there was not enough evidence to meet the relevant thresholds. Here is proof that the emphasis on keeping a child with its family as established under the 1989 Act leads to difficulties in removing a severely abused child from their home when it is necessary.Chapter Four Further legislation as a result of these casesIt became evident following the case of Victoria Climbie that further radical change was needed to protect the lives of endangered children and that the Children Act 1989 was not sufficient legal governance in this area.A public inquiry was established in order to find the exact causes of Climbies death, and following this was a report headed by overlord Laming. He reported that no(prenominal) of the government funded agencies can emerge from this report with much credit. headmaster Laming claimed that the problem with child protection did not lie with the legal framework but its implementation and that there were major discrepancies with the staff that work with children. shaper Laming made a total of 108 re commendations in his report. The most significant recommendations include the every child matters initiative. This government initiative was introduced in 2003 and its main aims are to ensure that a child has the support needed to be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution and achieve economic well-being. It was the responsibility of the multi-agency partnerships to work together in order to meet the detailed framework surrounding each theme of the initiative. shaper Laming also reported that the failures of the police, social workers and hospital staff were partly due a lack of accountability.Lord Laming suggested that the only way to address this issue would be to create a childrens minister who would be held accountable to the cabinet. Partly in response to the Lord Laming report, Margaret Hodge was appointed as the minister for children in 2003. Her role was to administrate the policies governing children at risk as well as other significant child g overnance.The Every Child Matters green paper was inditeed by the government in response to Lord Lamings inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie. This green paper recommended policy changes backed up by legislation, and the Children Act 2004 was knowing to respond to the findings of the Lord Laming inquiry.The 2004 Act established a childrens commissioner. Under S2 of the Act, the childrens commissioners role includes promoting awareness of the views and interests of children in England. The Childrens commissioner has a wide role, which includes encouraging persons exercising functions or engaged in activities affecting children to take account of their views and interests terminate the secretary of state on the views and interests of children consider or research the operation of complaints procedures so far as children are concerned consider and research any other matter relating to the interests of a child and publish a report on any matter from the above list.The Childrens Commissioner role is to be concerned with the views and interests of children relating to a number of aspects of their well being. These include their physical and mental health and emotional well being protection from harm or neglect education, training and recreation the contribution made by them in society and their social and economic well-being. They may also conduct an inquiry into an individual child if they feel it may raise issues of relevance to other children.As well as establishing the Childrens Commissioner, the 2004 Act provided a response to Lord Lamings report which heavily criticised the lack of co-operation between the services that deal with children. The Act places a duty to cooperate in order to improve the well being of a child at risk. This was designed to prevent further cases of children falling through the gaps such as Victoria Climbie, and ensure that all services such as the police, doctors and social workers are under a specific duty to communicate and work together to promote the well-being of an endangered child.A key instrument in the enforcement of cooperation between agencies was the creation of electronic records for every child in the country. This record made it easier to trace a child who had moved to a new area and was therefore transferred between local authorities. It could be argued that keeping details of children on electronic record is a breach of article 8 of the Human Rights Act, and critics have made clear their view that these files will destroy the confidentiality of medical and legal records. Doctors, teachers and the police will have to alert the system to a wide range of concerns, and two reports on a childs record could be sufficient to provoke an investigation.Whilst the electronic records system may appear to be an effective provision in order to ensure that child mistreatment is monitored, there was a great deal of confusion as to what would be deemed as a concern. Dr Eileen Monro of the capital of the United Kingdom School of Economics said that if a child fails to make progress towards state targets, detailed information would be gathered and this would include judgements such as whether the parent is providing a positive role sit around as well as sensitive information such as their mental state. This could mean that parents are forced to bring up their child in line with what the state deems is best rather than as they themselves see fit.It c