that take a broader holistic approach towards child neglect and consider rela-tionship issues and family dysfunction in addition to poverty and physical neglect workers may feel ‘over-whelmed’ by the complexity of the case.
The role of the supervisor
If, as would seem to be the case in the Irish study, teams respond differently to cases of child neglect then this raises questions about the role of the team manager. Practitioners and managers in the study were asked to respond to the statement ‘the criteria for triggering child protection procedures can vary depending on which manager is involved’. Seven of the nine managers agreed with this; however, only 53% of practitioners agreed. If team managers recognize different approaches while a large number of practitioners do not it would appear that many practitioners are unaware of the differences in practice between the com-munity care areas accepting their team approach as ‘normal’. It may be that some team members are unaware of the influence of the manager in setting thresholds and the focus for assessments and interventions. In addition, the respondents in the focus groups believed that team members played a signifi-cant role in supporting fellow team members and acting as a sounding board when exploring concerns about children and families. It would seem the team members play a part in reinforcing the standards set by the manager.
The assessment process: differences between theory and
Bridge Childcare Consultancy (1995) state that they ‘cannot stress too highly’
the importance of communicating with children in cases of neglect.
Yet, the review of case material indicated a lack of meaningful communica-tion with children about their lives. In only five cases was there clear evidence on the files of workers ascertaining the wishes and feeling of children regard-ing their experiences. Not only were children not listened to, but in 15 of 21 home visits made following a referral there was no evidence on the file of the children actually being seen. As neglect centres on the impact of parenting behaviour on the child (Dubowitz 1999), it is difficult to see how workers can assess neglect without at the very least seeing the child.
Working with parents: aggression, resistance, collusion and stereotyping
Seventy-five per cent (n = 30) of respondents to the questionnaire had a strong view that decisions about the child in cases of child neglect should be based on workers and the family exploring all possible outcomes and weighing up the costs and benefits of each. Sisty per cent (n = 24) of respondents went on to indicate that decisions were made according to information from the family most of the time while 33% (n = 13) said they do this all of the time. Although there was evidence on the files that working together with parents did take place, on many occasions it was not always the case. In some cases, the views of both parents were not obtained. For example, there were alleged concerns about both carers in ten cases however only the mother or the father were seen.
In five of these cases, the father came to the office and the mother was never seen. In four cases the social worker only met with the mother even though the concerns centred on the behaviour of the father. In two additional cases, although the referral related to the impact of marital conflict on the children, the focus for assessment and intervention was the mother rather than both parents. All these cases were closed without evidence on the file of discussion of the causes of concern with both carers. Swift (1994) notes that early definitions of neglect were personalized and gendered, ‘seen as failure of individual mothers to carry out their mothering responsibilities’ (p.72). Scourfield (2000) has argued that in the recent ‘rediscovery of neglect’ the dominant construction of neglect among the social work practitioners in his study was ‘maternal failure to service children’s bodies’ (p.365). Neglect is usually constructed as an omission in care, and the gendered nature of care means that neglect is associ-ated with deficiencies in mothering (Turney 2000) (see also Chapter Fourteen).
This was borne out in the case scenario. Only three respondents saw the lack of support the mother received from the father as a cause for concern and only five respondents identified the father’s perceived lack of interest in the parenting role as an issue. What emerges is a picture in some cases of the mother being perceived by workers as totally responsible for the care of the children.
A number of respondents acknowledged, when asked to state factors that did contribute to decision-making, that aggression was influential. The review of the case files would also seem to indicate that in practice not only physical and verbal aggression but also passive resistance can influence the decision-making process. There were ten cases where carers avoided meaningful contact with the social worker. For example, carers cancelled or did not attend home or office visits. In some cases the carers did allow social workers to visit; however, they managed to avoid meaningful contact. For example, one social worker noted ‘Mother is seen but when one gets in a conversation it is difficult to conduct because of constant interruptions’. All these cases resulted in closure without any meaningful discussion with the family about the concerns of child neglect.
The use of language commonalities and differences
The Irish study highlighted some interesting findings regarding the use of ter-minology amongst social work professionals and differences between the social workers and other professionals. In some cases perceptions regarding the meaning of terms were similar, in other cases there were considerable differ-ences. These findings regarding different use of language are explored through the use of the term ‘good enough parenting’.
GOOD ENOUGH PARENTING
Throughout the records on the files references were made to ‘good enough parenting’, for example ‘parenting is good enough case closed’. Case records also indicated that social workers ask other professionals the question ‘Is parenting good enough?’ In order to elicit whether social work practitioners were consistent in the use of this term respondents were asked to define the term ‘good enough parenting’. The responses were coded into seven common themes (see Table 5.2). The most common answer, given by 17 respondents (42.5%), referred to parenting which meets the child’s physical needs, that is those for food, shelter, warmth, clothing etc. However even this was open to dispute as two practitioners specified that ‘good enough parenting’ did not meet the needs of the child, saying ‘it is at times very difficult to define the term, but good enough parenting will not meet the needs of the child’ and ‘the standard of parenting is such that the child’s health, welfare or development is, has or will be seriously affected’.
Table 5.2 Definitions of good enough parenting
Valid Frequency
* Percentage of
respondents*
Meeting child’s (physical) needs 17 42.5
Parents provide love/nurture/attachment/emotional warmth 11 27.5
Child is safe/not at immediate risk 8 20.0
Promoting child’s development/stimulating child 6 15.0
Parent does best/puts child first 5 12.5
Parenting is (just) adequate/acceptable 5 12.5
Not meeting child’s needs 2 5.0
The second most common answer (27.5%, n = 11) was that parents provide children with love, nurture, emotional warmth, etc. while the third was that the child was safe or not at (immediate) risk (20.0%, n = 8). Six respondents (15%) felt that ‘good enough parenting’ promoted the child’s development, or provided stimulation for the child, but again one specifically mentioned that
‘good enough parenting’ did not promote child development or stimulate the child. This respondent wrote: ‘Parent meets child’s basic material and emo-tional needs but has limited insight into child’s developmental needs.’
Five (12.5%) believed ‘good enough parenting’ means the parent(s) do(es) their best, or ‘putting the child first’ and the same number (12.5%, n = 5) felt that ‘good enough parenting’ was just adequate/acceptable (and no more).
Only a minority of respondents provided a holistic definition that his/her needs for food, warmth, education, stimulation, emotional growth, ment etc. are met and ‘good enough parenting promotes the child’s develop-ment’.
The term was originally used by Winnicott (1964) to describe a facilitating parenting environment that enables the child’s needs to be met. However what is apparent from the responses is that respondents confuse the term and some practitioners use ‘good enough parenting’ to describe what Cooper refers to as
‘border-line’ and ‘bad-enough parenting’ (Cooper 1983). In addition, as Pugh, De’Ath and Smith (1994) comment, what is good enough parenting for one child may be inadequate for another child. This was not noted explicitly by the respondents in the Irish study.
* Some respondents gave multiple answers
Messages from research
· The assessment framework emphasizes that standardized practice is most likely to occur if the use of professional judgement is informed by an evidence-based approach to care.
· Social workers display a diverse range of individual assumptions of parenting and the needs of the children that are likely to influence attitudes towards neglect.
· Personal judgement and double standards operated among the social work professionals in this study.
· In the Irish study there were regional variations regarding defining neglect which in turn influenced the assessment process.
· There were differences between what workers believed they did and what happened in actual practice.
· There was a lack of meaningful communication with children about their lives.
· The focus for assessment and intervention tended to be on the mother.
· Social workers differed in their understanding of ‘good enough parenting’.
· If practitioners are to be more open-minded when assessing cases of child neglect they need an aide memoire.