The Role and Responsibilities of a Social Worker in Safeguarding Children

1. What were the social worker’s responsibilities to Tomas and Sophie, whilst they were in their mother’s care and how would this have been managed?

Generally, social workers have encompassing duties towards the children and families that they are attached to for care. In this case, the social worker was responsible for working collaboratively with the family of Lynette and with the children to provide educative, advocacy and specialist therapeutic services. The social worker in this case was responsible for assessment and reporting to courts and other agencies on the progress of the children and family generally. Section 7 of the Children Act 1989 (Act) provides for the submission of welfare reports to the court as may be needed. According to Part 6, Practice Direction 16A Family Procedure Rules 2010, a social worker responsible is required to prepare a welfare report after conducting investigations and to seek obtain professional services that they children may need.

Therefore, the social worker in this case ought to have conducted investigations, risk assessment then made a report to the Local Authority or the court for action. The case study at hand show that the children have been neglected and exposed to harmful conditions including a sex offender. According to Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018, the social worker should see and speak to the two children to determine the kind of support needed. In fact, the Lord Leming Review into the death of Victoria Climbie and Munro Report on the death of Baby P should have guided the social worker to make a professional judgment in time to improve the children’s lives (Munro, 2011). Further, the social worker has a duty to refer the children to the local authority after taking into account their developmental needs and the ability of their parents to care for them.

The job of a social worker involves engaging different people around the child and the family (Bullock et al 2019). In this scenario, the social worker was required to consider the welfare and safety of the children, identify the risk and determine whether the use of Emergency Protections Orders is necessary. Because the conditions in which both children were living was bad, it was the duty of the social worker to make a report to the local authority. The needs of the children necessitates a quick assessment by the social worker to inform the commissioning of the necessary services such as accommodation, education, and other relevant support as may be needed to safeguard Tomas and Sophie.

What emergency safeguards were necessary for Sophie and Tomas and how would they be addressed?

Pursuant to section 17 of the Children Act (CA) 1989, it is the general duty of each local authority to safeguard and protect the welfare of children within their jurisdiction who are in need. This duty imposed on the local authorities includes emergency safeguards depending on the situation at hand. The local authority will come in where it is established that the child is need in accordance with section 17(10) CA which define a child in need as one who is unable to achieve a reasonable standard of heath or development without the services of the local authority. . However, before the local authority can take the above steps there also other emergency safeguards that can be applied.

Emergency Protection Orders (EPO) under section 44(4) CA 1989 can also be used to protect the welfare of a children in imminent danger like Tomas and Sophie. The local authority simply needs to make an application to court to grant the EPO. The order will direct Brenda who is currently in charge of the children to hand them over to the local authority that will then move them to their own accommodation facilities. Alternatively, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) may apply for EPO under section 44(1) CA 1989 on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the children are suffering significant harm as per section 31 (9) CA 1989. However, the local authority must be cognisant of the judgment in the judicial review case concerning R (G) v Nottingham City Council [2008] EWHC 152 where it was held that before action is taken, the local authority must enquire and communicate effectively with social workers.

Another option available to the local authorities is an Interim Care Order or interim supervision order under section 38 of the Children Act 1989 provided that it is proved before court that the children are already suffering or are likely to suffer significant harm. Indeed, Tomas and Sophie are suffering significant harm arising from neglect and are likely to suffer further harm including the risk of sexual assault. In K&H (Children) [2006] EWCA Civ 1898, the court allowed an appeal against interim care order granted for a child on the basis that the local authority must before making an application, consider the risk of separation against the risk of remaining. Therefore the social workers responsible must consider whether immediate separation is the most appropriate step in safeguarding the children’s welfare. Given the gravity of neglect and abuse in this case, immediate separation would be the ultimate choice.

2. What were the duties and responsibilities of the AMHP during Lynette’s admissions to hospital?

Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights provide that a person has the right to liberty and security and no one should be deprived of that liberty except in cases of lawful detention of persons of unsound mind (Gould, 2016). A similar implication is echoed by the Human Rights Act 1998 which aims to protect the rights and fundamental freedom of all persons regardless of age, sex, disability and race. Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 allows Approved Mental Health Professionals to detain a person who is reasonably believed to be suffering from mental disorder. Lynette is already in the hospital and they have reason to believe from their professional assessment that she is suffering from mental disorder. The AMHPs have the responsibility to make an assessment and present an application and report under section 5 for the detention of Lynette for up to 72 hours. The detention is justified by the fact the she is a risk to herself and to the children whom she is unable to care for in here present state.

During this period of detention under Lynette should be informed of the right to get help from an Independent Mental Health Advocate (IMHA). The IMHA can help Lynette know her rights further including that of being discharged from the hospital. The AMHPs also have a duty to inform Lynette of her right to appeal against the decision to be sectioned to the Mental Health Tribunal which could overturn the decision if it was not made in correct manner. Lynette can ask for a meeting with the hospital managers and the AMHPs are required to grant the request as soon as reasonably practicable. She can and should be allowed to exercise the right to complain to the Care Quality Commission or the Healthcare Inspectorate depending on where she is sectioned.

AMHPs can make an application for guardianship under section 7 of the Mental Health Act where it may not be necessary to section Lynette but to keep her under close monitoring as she recovers. Before, an application is made for guardianship or admission for treatment, the AMHPs are required to consult Lynette’s nearest relative as per the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice. They should also interview the patient in a suitable manner and treat them in manner consistent with the Equality Act 2010. Further, AMHPs have a duty to inform the nearest relative of Lynette before she’s sectioned under section 2 of the Mental Health Act.

How should issues of mental capacity be addressed in the case study and why is this also relevant to planning for the children?

Mental health problems are serious and persons with mental disorder are incapacitated and are treated almost in the same manner as children. As a result a parent who is having mental health issues may not be in the best position to take care of Tomas and Sophie despite being their mother. The local authority and professionals involved should take into account the best interest of the children and at the same time take steps to help Lynette recover. After 72 hours of sectioning, Lynette should be discharge but the AMHPs should consider making an application for her to be subjected to Supervised Community Treatment under section 17A of the Mental Health Act.

Tomas and Sophie can rightfully be categorised as children in need within the meaning of section 17 of the Children Act. As a result the local authority has the duty to undertake assessment of their needs and consider their ages to understand the nature of services that they need. The above assessment should take into account the children’s view and that of the family. The nature of services to be provided could include accommodation services under section 20 of the Children Act.

Although the local authority can apply for the immediate separation of the children from their parents or guardians, the Children Act envisages a situation where children should grow up in their parents’ care and not local authority where practicable. In Re B (A Child) (Care Order) 2013 UKSC the Supreme Court upheld a decision that allowed the local authority to take away a child immediately she was born because of the risk of emotional harm from past conduct of the parents. Tomas and Sophie are already undergoing neglect and suffering significant harm and should immediately be removed from the care of Brenda and Lynette for their best interests. Therefore, the children should be placed under full care order of the local authority with parental responsibility being shared between the authority and the parents under section 31(1) (a) of the Children Act. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides that a person is to be presumed to have capacity unless it is established that he or she lacks capacity. In this scenario, the mother of Tomas and Sophie although presumed to have capacity, is unable to properly care for the children. Therefore, it is possible that measures can be taken to place them in the care of another person.

4. What is the responsibility of the Local Authority to provide support and services to Lynette upon discharge from hospital?

Apart from the Mental Health 1983 which provides a legal framework for the treatment of persons with mental disorder, the Care Act 2014 provides for the promotion people’s wellbeing. Section 9 of the Act provides for the assessment of an adult’s need for care and support and Lynette falls in this category. It is imperative upon the local authority to conduct a needs assessment where it comes to its knowledge that an adult is need of care by virtue of age or mental impairment. The Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2015 provide for the requisite criteria that must be met during needs assessment for one to be eligible for consideration.

Once the local authority has met the needs under section 18 or 20 or opts to do so under section 20(6) CA 2014, it will be required to prepare a care and support plan for Lynette. If the needs will require directs payments then the local authority must inform Lynette of the same and help her decide how to have the needs met. Pursuant to section 8 of the Care Act 2014, the local authority may provide Lynette with accommodation in care home, care and support at home or in the community, goods and facilities, information, advice, and advocacy. Lynette can also be categorised as adult at risk because of domestic abuse and self-neglect hence warranting care and support under sections 42-47 of the Care Act 2014 and the attendant Care and Support Statutory Guidance.

Bibliography

Table of Cases

K&H (Children) [2006] EWCA Civ 1898

R (G) v Nottingham City Council [2008] EWHC 152 (Admin)

Re B (A Child) (Care Order) 2013 UKSC

Re: M [2006} 1 FLR 1043

Table of Statutes

Care Act 2014

Children Act 1986

Equality Act 2010

European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights Act 1988

Mental Health Act 1983

Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018

Journals

Bullock, L., Stanyon, M., Glaser, D. and Chou, S., 2019. Identifying and responding to child neglect: Exploring the professional experiences of primary school teachers and family support workers. Child Abuse Review.

Munro, E., 2011. The Munro review of child protection: final report, a child-centred system (Vol. 8062). The Stationery Office.

Books

Gould, N., 2016. Mental health social work in context. Routledge.

Looking for further insights on The Nexus of Science and Racism? Click here.