The Case Study Involving a Minor Child Care

Introduction

This essay provides an assessment of the case study involving a minor child, Kelly. The case study involves a situation where the question arises as to who the proper person is to be the carer for the child in this case scenario.

Assessment of the situation highlighting relevant ethical issues

In this situation, there are concerns regarding two adults, Kelly and Daniel and their individual ability to care for their daughter, Bethany who is nine years old. Concerns about Kelly relate to the fact that she is 24 weeks pregnant, has been evicted, and is now subject to a 12-month Community Order and supervision of a Probation Officer. Concerns about Daniel relate to the fact that he is possibly suffering from depression and does not want to leave his home, which may be a reflection on his inability to have normal life. The question for the Social Worker in this scenario would relate to who the appropriate person is to care for Bethany. The conflict presented in this situation relates to whether Bethany, whose principal carer is Kelly since the former was 3 years old or whether the appropriate person is the father of the child.

The risks of Bethany being left in the care of her mother are that she will not be looked after since Kelly has not been able to keep her flat and is not subject to community order. Another risk that is reflected in Daniel’s statement on Kelly’s temper problems is that Bethany may be exposed to child abuse of which Kelly may be the perpetrator. Yet another risk to Bethany is that she may not have a stable home because of Kelly’s homelessness at this point. On the other hand, if she is left in the care of Kelly, Bethany may be in the care of her mother who has been her carer for this time.

The risks of being left in the care of Daniel are related to the state of the home that the social worker found in Daniel’s accommodation as the house appears dirty, and there is little food in the home. Furthermore, if it is established that Daniel is suffering from depression then this also presents a risk to Kelly as Daniel may not be able to take care of her needs. Therefore, the social worker may have to consider that there is a possibility that Daniel is having mental health issues. An ethical issue for the Social Worker in this context is that they must avoid developing a prejudice towards the parent who may be suffering from mental health issue. Literature suggests that parents with mental health issues may not be competent to look after their children (Swartz, et al., 1998), and have a negative impact on the child (Danson, Macias, Gold, Barreira, & Fisher, 2008). But, social workers have the ethical concerns of not developing prejudice. The benefit of being in Daniel’s care is that being Bethany’s father, he may be able to provide a home and safe environment to Kelly.

An alternative solution in the situation could be that the Local Authority takes responsibility. The ethical and legal concern for the social worker in this context could be the best interest concerns of the child and whether this is best served by the child being left in the care of one of the parents.

Also relevant here is the Bronfenbrenner ecological systems theory because it provides that individuals undergo developmental processes interlinked with the social systems in their environment and these lead to the development of ecology of the individual (Bronfenbrenner, 2009). The Social Worker would have to consider how the assessment of the question of Bethany’s custody affects her development process.

Analysis of how legislation and statutory guidance could apply to the scenario

This section of the essay critically discusses the key pieces of legislation and guidance that inform the rights of each person and the duties or powers of services and practitioners in the current case scenario. The section considers how the requirement of meeting the needs of Bethany interacts with the rights of Kelly and Daniel. In this situation, Bethany’s best interest has to be considered with the rights of Kelly and Daniel as her parents. There is also a conflict between whether Kelly or Daniel must be given the custody of Bethany. Based on the principle that it is the responsibility of the social services to provide holistic safeguarding for the care, support, protection and wellbeing of vulnerable children and even adults. Social workers, in the task of making assessments and decisions with regard to questions such as the one posed in this situation, are required to apply theory, legislation, good practices, and policy relevant to the situation.

With regard to Daniel, the issue of parenting with a mental health issue arises if the question is whether Daniel should be given the custody of Daniel. It may be mentioned here that Daniel opposes custody to Kelly on the ground of her temper issues. From the perspective of policy and legislation, there are a number of measures that relate to parenting with a mental health issue. In this regard, the challenge is that a parent with mental health problems may have to cope with both the mental health issues and parenting. The legislation that is directly related to this issue is the Care Act 2014, Section 1 of which emphasises on promotion of individual well being, which includes the domestic relationships of the individual. Thus, the Care Act 2014, Section 9 read with Section 12 requires the social workers to make assessments albeit in a flexible manner by considering the needs of the individual and the expected outcomes (Parker, 2017, p. 55). The Care Act 2014 generally emphasises on well-being, care and support planning and assessments (Parker, 2017, p. 48).

Also applicable to the situation of Daniel’s fitness to take care of Kelly is the Mental Capacity Act 2005 because a question of his being a parent with mental health issues is involved in this situation. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 defines the legal framework applicable to social work and provides the statutory powers and duties related to intervention for the best interest of such persons. Inter alia, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Section 2, may include severe and clinical depression if it leads to such disturbance in the functioning of the mind that it impairs the person’s decision making facilities (NHS, Autism spectrum disorder - Adults with autism , 2016). Parents with mental health issue may come within the purview of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Section 2, if they are unable to make decisions for themselves due to an impairment or disturbance in the mind albeit temporary. In the event that there is a child with a parent with mental health issues, social workers are required to be aware of the challenges in the situation and any help or support that is needed (HM Government, 2015). Related to this point, the Children’s Act 1989, Section 11 also makes it a duty for the local authorities to identify families needing adult social care services (HM Government, 2015, p. 58). In other words, there may be a possibility that Daniel himself requires adult social care services.

It would also be pertinent to mention that the Care Programme Approach provides guidance to Social Worker to respond to individuals with complex needs, which includes parents with mental health needs in which case the Social Worker may help to manage care plans (Rethink Mental Illness, 2015). Furthermore, irrespective of the legislation the child is assessed under, the purpose of the assessment is for gathering information about a child and family so as to analyse their needs or the nature and level of any risk and harm being suffered by the child, to decide whether the child is a child in need or is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. The assessment has the ultimate objective of identifying the way in which support can be provided to address the identified needs (HM Government, 2018).

An important consideration for the Social worker in this case arises from the possible incapability of both Kelly and Daniel to care for their daughter. This consideration arises out of objection taken by Daniel to Kelly’s custody of Bethany on the ground that Kelly has temper problems which puts Bethany at risk, and from the observations of the Social Worker as to the condition of Daniel’s home. The relevant legislation in this context is the Children and Families Act 2014, which made changes to Children Act 1989. Consequently Section 1 (6) of Children Act 1989, provides for situations where a parent is incapable of looking after the child or there is some risk of harm to the child in the home environment. In this situation, two points that arise are that Daniel may be incapable of caring for Bethany because of possible mental health issues and Bethany may face certain risks in Kelly’s custody. With regard to Kelly, one of the questions is whether she is homeless and whether she can continue to provide a home for her child. The UK Housing Act 1996, Section 175 defines a homeless person as a person without accommodation or with accommodation, but unable to secure it.

The Children Act 1989, Section 31 allows for the child to be placed in foster care in the event that the parent is not capable of taking care of the child or the child faces some risk in the custody of the parent. Under the Children Act 1989, Section 31 (3B) the child may be placed in family or friend carer’s custody or under adoption arrangements. In the same context, the Local Authority also have the statutory duty under Children Act 1989, Section 17 to safeguard and promote the interests of the children so that interventions may be allowed for preventing harm or risk to the children.

The Children’s Act 1989 has been reformed in 2014 in which year a presumption has been added into the law in favour of family contact under Section 1(2A) and this presumption is used to ensure that contact between parents and children continues and is maintained. Section 1 (2A) provides the following:

“A court, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (7), is as respects each parent within subsection (6)(a) to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child's welfare” (Section 1 (2A)).

This presumption is made by the decision maker so that unless the contrary is proved that maintaining relationship between parents and children even after separation would be in the best interests of the child unless the contrary is shown to the court. This presumption is premised on the viewpoint that children benefit from a relationship with parents even after separation (Norgrove, 2011 ). Therefore, even if for some reason the Social Worker comes to the assessment that they would have to separate Bethany from both Kelly and Daniel or one of them, then consideration must be given to the reforms made under the Children and Families Act 2014 including to the Children’s Act 1989, are in accordance with the UN Convention on Rights of Child. This is in accordance with Article 9 of the UN Convention on Rights of Child which also emphasises on the benefits that children derive from continued contact with parents unless it is shown that the continued contact is not in the best interests of the child. Courts in the UK have also considered that the contact with family is an essential component for ensuring the best interest of the child (C (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 1774, 2011). The court has considered contact between parent and child to be a fundamental element of family life and has held that the state has a duty to ensure that there is a continued contact between parent and child (Re C (A child: suspension of contact) 2011 2 FLR 912, 2011). Therefore, decisions made by the Social Worker must also take into consideration that the courts would also emphasises on the continued contact between Bethany and Daniel and Kelly in the event that the decision is taken for separating Bethany from her parents.

Further relevant here is a discussion on Human Rights Act 1998 and its relevance to the rights of the individuals involved. The right to family life is an important human right which is protected by Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which is implemented in the UK though the Human Rights Act 1998. Prior to making an assessment on whether Bethany should be removed from the care of her mother or father, the Social Worker should consider how such decision would impact the right to family life of Bethany.

Cross cutting themes, ethics, values and AOP

In this section, the essay discusses the elements of good practice in the field of social work when working with families. When working with families, Social Workers may be faced with certain ethical issues and may also be required to consider their values and ethics when working with families. These ethical issues are raised even when the Social Worker is directed by legislation and guidance relevant to the case scenario. Concerns around power and oppression are required to be considered by the Social Worker in such case scenarios. There are three individuals within the family who involved in this case scenario, Kelly, Daniel, and Bethany. This section will discuss the themes, ethics, values and anti-oppressive practice in this case scenario.

Prior to discussing the ethics and values in this case scenario, it would be useful to first define the term value; this term has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary as principles or standards of behaviour related to self-judgement on what is important to them in their life. It is noteworthy that individuals have a set of individual and shared beliefs that influence their actions and Social Workers also have such beliefs and values that can guide their actions and decisions which may be different from the people of a different culture and values. At the same time, British Association of Social Workers also have certain professional values which are related to values like human rights, social justice and professional integrity. These values are also embedded as duties in Care Act 2014, Section 1 which requires that the Social Workers provide a robust service with respect, dignity and human rights (Glasby & Dickinson, 2014).

The Social Worker who is assessing the current situation involving Bethany, Kelly, and Daniel may also have regard to the policy and legislative emphasis on importance of family for the child. In this regard, the Social Worker may have regard to the think child, think parent, think family initiative, which emphasises on the focus on the entire family so that assessments are done by taking into consideration the entire family and their needs and values (Social Care Institute for Excellence, 2012). Consideration also may be given to the Evidence-based practice (EBP) for assessing whether Daniel can have custody of Bethany even though there is a possibility that Daniel may be having some mental health issues. Evidence-based practice is related to applying the best currently available research evidence so that they “do things right” and “do the right things” (Waddell & Godderis, 2005, p. 60). Social Workers can use evidence-based practice so that they can apply well-researched interventions, own experience and ethics, preferences and culture of the service users and their families before identifying certain interventions or making assessments (Waddell & Godderis, 2005). Evidence-based practice also relates to improvement of services designed to support the well-being of children and families (Palinkas, et al., 2008). In the context of parents with mental health issues, evidence-based practice suggests a shift in practice towards supporting adults in their parenting roles when they have mental health needs so that families where such issues arise can receive important support in situations where a parent has mental health needs can continue (with support) to look after their children without losing their parental responsibility. This is also the emphasis of the think child, think parent, think family initiative and based on this principle, the ethical requirement for the Social Worker is to make assessments while taking care to include the family (Social Care Institute for Excellence, 2012a). Interventions by Social Workers can be devised for helping parents to live more fulfilling lives while after their children even if they have some mental health issues (Social Care Institute for Excellence, 2012a). In this situation, the Social Worker has to understand that even if Daniel may have some mental health issues, this does not prima facie mean that the Social Worker should make an assessment to separate Bethany from Daniel. It is possible to provide support to Daniel so that he can continue to care for his daughter and she can stay with him. In this context, it is also important to note that the Care Programme Approach provides support for individuals with complex needs, such as Daniel in this case scenario (Rethink Mental Illness, 2015).

With regard to Kelly, the issue that the Social Worker has to consider is whether her not having a home means that she cannot provide care for Bethany. The second issue is with regard to the objections made by Daniel regarding Kelly’s ability to provide care for Bethany because of her temper problems. With regard to the first issue, the Social Worker may have regard to the possibility for using innovative service models (Naylor, et al., 2016). In certain cases, integrated care can be provided to the users who need different kind of services such as integration of health care with social care. In this case, Kelly may need social support to find a home and work or other social security so that she is able to provide care for Bethany. In the event that Kelly continues to be the carer for Bethany, then the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 may also be relevant because this law places duties on local authorities to intervene at earlier stages to prevent homelessness in their areas. Section 213B of the Housing Act 1996 places a duty on public authorities to refer to a housing authority service users they consider are or may be homeless or threatened with homelessness.

Social Worker also has to ensure that their practice is anti-oppressive, so that the Social Worker is also involved in questioning their value and ethics so that they continue to ensure whether their work and practice is not oppressive for the children and adults in the case scenario. This would also mean that the Social Worker learn new skills, and demonstrate that they are morally inclusive and also competent in different kinds of social situations (Parker, 2017, p. 58). Social Worker also may consider that oppression can be caused by factors like gender, race, and socio-economic status to name a few (Healy, 2014). Anti-oppressive practice requires a critical self-reflection and consideration of the service users’ perception and experiences of oppression (Healy, 2014). It also requires consideration of multi-ethnic settings and culture so that Social Worker work with sensitivity towards individuals and families that may have certain ethnic backgrounds (Dominelli, 2002; Healy, 2014).

Therefore, the Social Worker in this case has to also consider the cultural or social aspects related to the family while making their assessment. In this situation, an important social factor to be considered while making the assessment in order to ensure anti-oppressive practice is related to the social and economic condition of Kelly and Daniel. The Social Worker will have to ensure that while asking questions related to the financial condition of Kelly who is currently homeless, and asking questions related to the lifestyle of Daniel who does not like to go out and meet people often, are not intrusive. Overly intrusive social workers may also be perceived as oppressive by some individuals or their families (Walker, 2012). Therefore, social workers will have to strike a balance when dealing with such cases. The Social Worker needs to have answers to questions related to how Kelly or Daniel will provide care for Bethany, but the questions should not be asked in a way that would be perceived as too intrusive and oppressive by either Kelly and Daniel.

Also important is the requirement to work in a multi-agency environment because there is now increasing integration which also means the Social Worker has to ensure harmonious work with other constituents of the multi-agency environment particularly when values may vary from one to the other constituent (Maslin-Prothero & Bennion, 2010).

To summarise this section, the Social Worker while making assessments, must consider that there is a potential for them to overemphasise on own values and moral code instead of considering that personal values can be different for different people. The potential threat of this can be neutralised by adherence to professional values which are based on a code of ethics under the British Association of Social Workers. Thus, instead of having regard to own personal values, it would be more appropriate for the Social Worker to have regard to professional values. Also important is that the Social Worker aids in removal of barriers at the individual, professional, organisational and societal level; pertinently, Social Worker must try to remove misinformation and prejudice at the individual level in order to make proper assessments and decisions (Sue, 2001). It may also be mentioned that the assessments of the Social Worker if done improperly and with regard to irrelevant or improper grounds, are liable to be set aside by the courts as well (The Queen (On the Application of JF) v London Borough of Merton, (Rev 1) [2017] EWHC 1519 (Admin), 2017).

Resolution of practice dilemmas arising from the application of legislation

One of the important elements of government policy on the current situation is the “Working Together to Safeguard Children A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children” (HM Government, 2018). The guidance is for the different agencies that are required to ensure protection to children within and without the home. The Children Acts of 1989, 2004 make it incumbent for the local authority in Section 17 to provide services to children in need in their area while Section 47 requires local authorities to undertake enquiries if the child is likely to suffer significant harm (HM Government, 2018). It is also made it incumbent for the local authority to ensure an integrated approach to such situations because the local authority can only provide protection to children with the full cooperation of other partners identified under Section 11 of the Children Act 2004. Section 10 provides that there is a duty to make arrangements to promote cooperation between local authorities and organisations and agencies (HM Government, 2018).

The local authority is also required to provide effective early help to the children and family identified by them for which purpose the local authority is required to undertake an assessment of the need for early help and provide early help services to address the assessed needs of a child and their family (HM Government, 2018). In making such assessments, the person making the assessment must take into account the views of the child and the family, and the wishes and feelings of the child (HM Government, 2018). The guidance provides that the assessment can be made if possible by seeing the children alone. In this situation, the assessment is also to be made if there is a child in need, who is defined by Section 17 Children Act 1989 as a child who “is unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable level of health or development, or whose health and development is likely to be significantly or further impaired, without the provision of services or a child who is disabled” (HM Government, 2018, p. 22). This assessment is to be made by the social worker (HM Government, 2018).

To conclude, there is relevant legislative and social policy framework that is applicable to the current scenario in which the Social Worker can conduct a proper assessment with regard to Bethany and whether she should continue to stay with Daniel or be given back into Kelly’s care or alternatively with the foster system.

Bibliography

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2009). The ecology of human development. Cambridge: Harvard university press.

C (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 1774 (2011).

Danson, J., Macias, R. L., Gold, P. B., Barreira, P., & Fisher, W. (2008). When parents with severe mental illness lose contact with their children: are psychiatric symptoms or substance use to blame? Journal of Loss and Trauma , 13(4), 261-287.

Glasby, J., & Dickinson, H. (2014). Partnership working in health and social care: what is integrated care and how can we deliver it? London: Policy Press.

Healy, K. (2014). Social work theories in context: Creating frameworks for practice. Palgrave Macmillan.

HM Government. (2015). Working together to safeguard children: A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. London.

HM Government. (2018). Working Together to Safeguard Children A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. London: HM Government.

Maslin-Prothero, S. E., & Bennion, A. E. (2010). Integrated team working: a literature review. International journal of integrated care, , 10, e043.

Naylor, C., Das, P., Ross, S., Honeyman, M., Thompson, J., & Gilburt, H. (2016). Bringing together physical and mental health. King's Fund.

NHS. (2016, June 1). Autism spectrum disorder - Adults with autism . Retrieved December 1, 2016, from nhs.uk: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Autistic-spectrum-disorder/Pages/Adultswithautism1.aspx

Norgrove, D. ( 2011 ). Family justice review: Final report . London : The Stationery Office.

Palinkas, L. A., Schoenwald, S. K., Hoagwood, K., Landsverk, J., Chorpita, B. F., & Weisz, J. R. (2008). An ethnographic study of implementation of evidence-based treatments in child mental health: First steps. Psychiatric Services, 59(7), 738–746.

Parker, J. (2017). Social work practice: Assessment, planning, intervention and review (5 ed.). London: Sage.

Rethink Mental Illness. (2015). Factsheet: Care Programme Approach. London.

Re C (A child: suspension of contact) 2011 2 FLR 912 (2011).

Social Care Institute for Excellence. (2012). At a glance 9: Think child, think parent, think family. Retrieved from www.scie.org.uk: http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/ataglance/ataglance09.asp

Social Care Institute for Excellence. (2012, May). SCIE Introduction to...adult mental health services. Retrieved from http://www.scie.org.uk: http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/introductionto/adultmentalhealthservices/interventions.asp

Social Care Institute for Excellence. (2012a). At a glance 9: Think child, think parent, think family. Retrieved from www.scie.org.uk: http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/ataglance/ataglance09.asp

Sue, D. (2001). Multidimensional Facets of Cultural Competence. The Counselling Psychologist, 29(6), 790-821.

Swartz, M. S., Swanson, J. W., Hiday, V. A., Borum, R., Wagner, H. R., & Burns., B. J. (1998). Violence and severe mental illness: the effects of substance abuse and nonadherence to medication. American journal of psychiatry, 155(2), 226-231.

The Queen (On the Application of JF) v London Borough of Merton, (Rev 1) [2017] EWHC 1519 (Admin) (2017).

Waddell, C., & Godderis, R. (2005). Rethinking evidence-based practice for children’s mental health. Evidence Based Mental Health, 8(3), 60-62.

Walker, S. (2012). , Effective Social Work with Children, Young People and Families: Putting Systems Theory into Practice. London: Sage.

Looking for further insights on Team Development and Employee Rights, Responsibilities? Click here.