Parental resistance and social worker skills: towards a theory of motivational social work

Abstract

Parental resistance is a ubiquitous feature of child and family social work, yet there has been limited research or theoretical work directed at the issue. This paper identifies social and individual reasons why parents may be resistant. Five principle causes of parental resistance are discussed, namely social structure and disadvantage, the context of child protection work, parental resistance to change, denial or minimization of abuse or neglect and the behaviour of the social worker. It is argued that motivational interviewing (MI) provides particularly useful skills and concepts for firstly reducing the social worker contribution to resistance and secondly minimizing the resistance related to other reasons for resistance. Key adaptations required in the strategic aims of MI if it is to be used in child protection work are identified and discussed, the most important of which is maintaining a focus on the child's welfare and safety. It is concluded that MI offers an opportunity to improve practice by increasing parental engagement and to make a contribution to social work theory by combining an attention to both broader social structure and the micro‐skills required in social work interviews.

Parental Cooperation with Social Services and Termination of Parental Rights in Israeli Court Cases of Child Maltreatment

“…Several factors were cited in the literature. The client-worker relationship is considered a key to enhancing parental cooperation (Forrester et al 2008(Forrester et al , 2012Gockel et al 2008;Lee and Ayon 2004;Maiter and Palmer 2006;Smith 2008;Trotter 2002Trotter , 2008. Holland (2000) found that the ability to agree on an explanation for the family situation is particularly important when determining the outcome of parental cooperation assessments.…”

The Trouble With Fathers: The Impact of Time and Gendered-Thinking on Working Relationships Between Fathers and Social Workers in Child Protection Practice in England

“…Where fathers do receive attention from the authorities, it may be as a potential abuser, in which case the tendency may be to exclude them from the family rather than to address the identified issue (Scott & Crooks 2004;Scourfield 2006). Where men are not excluded, they may be assessed as the source of undesirable behaviour without other needs being taken into consideration (Rivett 2010;Forrester et al 2012). In these circumstances, assessments may not accurately reflect the combination of factors men present for children they care for, potentially endangering children and excluding men.…”

Collaborative practice in statutory in child protection practice: Parental agreements and procedural justice

“…This is partnered with another body of literature that recognises that an over-focus on investigation, risk and coercive intervention in child protection work has resulted in negative experiences (Dale, 2004;Dumbrill, 2006;Harris, 2011D.Scott, 2009) and outcomes for families (Forrester, Westlake & Glynn, 2012;Munro, 2011;Platt, 2008;Turney, 2012). Together these findings provide further support to the suggestion that the overuse of adversarial and coercive processes may in fact disempower and alienate families, preventing their active and willing engagement in change (Harnett & Day, 2008).…”

“…The literature indicates that the impact of statutory involvement on parents is often overlooked and as such, parent responses to the shock and trauma of statutory involvement, such as anger or disengagement, may be misinterpreted as risk factors for their ability to parent (Dumbrill, 2006;Forrester et al, 2012).…”

“…As such, practitioners need to be aware of the role they play in exacerbating parent fear and intimidation (Dumbrill, 2006). Evidence suggests that failure to recognise the impact of statutory involvement may create a confrontational or disengaged dynamic between parents and practitioners (Dumbrill, 2006;Forrester et al, 2012).…”