The safety of children and the parent‐worker relationship in cases of child abuse and neglect

Abstract

Child protection work is complex and demanding and presents both parents and workers with a number of emotional and relationship demands. Although it is recognised that a good working alliance between child protection workers and parents is associated with therapeutic success and service user satisfaction, some current developments, including the growth of an audit culture with its attendant emphasis on targets and performance, appear to undermine the worker's ability to establish good relationships and working alliances. To the extent that poor-quality working relationships and increased emotional distance reduce the worker's capacity to be empathic, levels of stress for both parents and workers are likely to remain high. Heightened stress reduces the capacity of parents and workers to keep at-risk children in mind and in focus. This reduces their safety. The paper revisits the value of containment as a way of processing and managing difficult feelings which, along with more recent therapeutic concepts such as mentalisation, encourages workers to keep the parents' feelings in mind as well as hold the child in mind for the parent as a psychological, meaningful and mentalising being. Helping parents think about their feelings and understand, indeed celebrate, their children as burgeoning, independent psychological entities increases understanding, reduces stress and plays a part in helping keep children safe.

The ethics of predictive risk modelling in the Aotearoa/New Zealand child welfare context: Child abuse prevention or neo-liberal tool?

“…Thorpe reminds us "…family inclusion in child protection practice is a key strategy both for ... providing clear benefits for children, their families and communities" (2008: 4). In the context of PRM, establishing rapport and functional working relationships, fundamental to changing family dynamics or intervening on personal issues with service users, is likely to be difficult (Howe, 2010). Munro (2007b), for example, notes that too much information sharing too quickly can lead to excessively intrusive and conservative reactions, oppressive interventions that are extremely stressful for families, close down more supportive and engaging options for struggling families, and more importantly, do not improve the lives of children involved.…”

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

“…These factors may make it difficult for parents to not only focus on their children (Daro, McCurdy, Falconnier, & Stojanovic, 2003) but also engage in decision-making and interventions (Howe, 2010). The evidence indicates that distrust of services may be further exacerbated for these parents (Littell & Tajima, 2000) and that they may be sceptical of the possibility for change (Staudt, 2007;Taylor, Toner, Templeton, & Velleman, 2008).…”

“…She speaks of valuing a particular skill set, which aligns with the office culture towards IPA. Worker engagement skills have been shown to be critically important to facilitating parent engagement and participation in child protection practice (Altman, 2008;Dale, 2004;Howe, 2010;Kemp et al, 2014).…”

“…There is a strong body of literature that speaks to the importance of worker skill to parent engagement (Dale, 2004;Howe, 2010;Trotter, 2006).…”

Family Development Response Social Work and Family Service Social Work: From the service provider's perspective.

“…Howe (2010) notes that "in spite of much lip service paid to the values of a good relationship, modem policy and practice, spurred on by its own fears and anxieties, continue to drive parents and professionals further apart" (p. 332). Stanley (2010) states that the "evidence that high levels of regulations produce improved practice or better outcomes in child Family Development Response Social Work and Family Service Social Work: From the Service Provider's Perspective 34 protection is currently lacking, although it is apparent that they contribute to high levels of defensiveness and blame" (p. 304).…”