Social Safeguarding Children from Harm - Case Study Example

Safeguarding Children from Harm I. Introduction: Paramjit and Harpreet is an Indian couple who have four children aged 12 years, 4 years, and 2 years and 9 months. Based on the scenario given, Harpreet is under depression caused after his sudden wife’s death and a culture that drove him into marrying his second wife without grieving for his first wife. Likewise, Parmjit was married of to Harpreet at a tender age of 17 years with the failed promise that she could constantly visit her parents. This has brought difficulty in their relationship that has negatively impacted their parental responsibilities. Harpreet never spends time with his children and has been constantly beating his children causing them physical harm. On the other hand, Parmjit has neglected her duties as a mother and her 9 month old daughter is suffering from nappy rash. The scenario further shows evidence of likelihood of significant harm likely to be subjected to their children. Every child matters and therefore, no child should be subjected to neglect, sexual abuse, physical abuse or emotional abuse. The Children Workforce including the parents should therefore work together to ensure that the children are safe but at the same time ensure that they handle their individual responsibilities and roles in safeguarding children from harm. However, the biggest challenge is devising ways, strategies or methods through which they can successfully do this (Barker, 2009). To provide a detailed overview of what the Children Workforce should do, we are going to carry out an assessment on a given scenario involving the Paramjit family (Indian) which include: Paramjit; a 22 year old mother, Harpreet; a 32 year old father, Aman; 2 year –old son, Narinder; 9 month-old daughter, Taran; 4 year old son and Simran; 12 year old step daughter. II. Part I- Recognition and assessment of children harm: Behavioural, physical and psychological abuse cues: Under the children act, children are usually in significant harm if they are suffering or are likely to suffer. In this case, the children protection professionals were able to identify behavioral or physical patterns that clearly indicated that the children were likely to suffer from harm. Among the children maltreatment behavioral clues that the professionals observed included the cowering or fear of adults and display of disruptive or aggressive behavior. For instance, Aman who was playing along with his sibling in threw a tantrum in attempt to grab the toy car from the other child. It was also noted that Taran cowered from his father, Harpreet when he was slapping Aman. Taran quickly moved across the room and quietly stood behind his mother, a clear indication that he was afraid of his father. The professionals were also able to recognize that physical abuse resulting from slapping was eminent. This happened when Harpreet grabbed Aman roughly when he threw a tantrum and slapped him at the back of his legs. From the Scenario, it is also evident that the professionals interpreted Narinder slow-weight gain as a form of neglect from his parents. Further studies have also shown that there is no difference between delayed or impaired cognitive development and neglect in extreme low-birth weight infants. However, the child care professionals decided to solely base their action from a single scenario of physical chastisement observed by the play worker (Trotter, 2004). The professionals took a closer look at the abuses and failed to interpret or assess the underlying causes and the severity of the abuse in order to come up with the appropriate action. This implies that even though they observed and listened to what was happening, they failed to seek explanation of what was happening and find out whether there was a proven record or pattern of what they had observed and or heard. For instance, the scenario clearly showed that Harpreet made it difficult for Paramjit to converse with the Punjabi speaking woman as a result of steering the conversation in English, a language which Paramjit barely understood thus making her feel excluded. When Harpreet slapped Aman, Paramjit stood up and shook a clear indication that in spite of her not knowing English, she did not approve what Harpreet did. When Taran moved behind his mother, it further proved that Taran felt protected when he was with his mother. According to the health visitor’s records, it was clear that there were no major concerns that would have prompted child protection concerns. Nevertheless, the records indicated that Narinder parents took her to a baby clinic and her growth was put under continual monitoring. The records also indicated that Aman and Taran development and health have not been under any concern, a clear indication that the parents were trying to bring up their children in the best way possible. The children policy as put across under the 1989 Act requires that the state assist families in need of help in bringing up children. As the 1989 children Act section 17 (1) states, every local education, housing or health authority should promote and safeguard and promote children’s welfare within their area and in consistent with their duties, promote their upbringing by family members by providing services appropriate to the children’s needs and therefore, owing that the risk of significant harm for the children was low, placing the children under social services was not the best option. The professionals would have carried out a detailed assessment that would have made them identify the immediate concerns and given them information that would have enabled them to determine the children’s level need and the risk of significant harm to the children in Harpreet’s family (Moroe, 2007). To do this, the professionals should have taken a professional assessment technique which requires professionals to observe and listen, observe and interpret the underlying cause of the happenings, sought records or kept a record of proven incidences or patterns of the children harmed and determined the extent or severity of the children’s harm in order to come up with the best decision in regard to the action that is likely to be taken. Under the 1989 Children’s Act, the child is under significant harm if the child is likely to suffer or is suffering and the likelihood of the harm is beyond parent control. This implies that the children involved must be ill treated or their health and development impaired. To understand whether the children were under significant harm, the professionals should have put into consideration the nature of ill-treatment or harm, the risk of future harm, family context, and child’s development within the family context, cultural and social environment, and special needs such as medical attention, the impact on the child development and health and parental care adequacy. This way, they would have been able to determine the significant harm for the children and their level of needs in order to come up with a realistic solution. III. Part II - Main risks and the types of likely significant harm that can hamper the children development if the Harpreet’s family lacks the appropriate support. a) Main risks: A risk is defined to be any factor that increased the likelihood of the future negative outcome of children. These include lack of parenting skills, poor relationship between parents, culture, and children level of needs such as children in need of special care and children developmental needs. Children developmental needs: As children develop, they must meet developmental needs such as self care skills, social presentation, identity, behavioral and emotional development and health needs. However, the Harpreet and Paramjit children have several childhood risk factors such as insecure attachment, poor social skills and low birth weight that will hinder their children development. Taran has poor social skills which are evident through his quite nature and slow response. Simran has also poor social skills as she declined physical examination from the pediatrician. The class teacher has also noted that she is very quite and has no special friends contrary to her former class teacher’s academic report which has indicated that Simran was a popular among her friends and a cheerful girl. Taran is underweight while Narinder has low birth weight. When Simran is questioned about how her baby sister and brothers are doing, she holds back for her grandmother and father to respond hence giving a clear indication of insecure attachment between her, her father and grandmother (Horwarth, 2005). Strengths and burdens that influence parent’s ability in taking care of their children Since 1980’s scientific studies have examined that risk factors are likely to cause school failure, child behavioural problems, school failure, physical abuse, poor health and adolescents crimes and substance abuse. This is evidence by Taran’s behavioural problems. Taran ignores and disrespects his father who in return physically abuses him as a way of punishing him. This in return affects Taran’s health and the pediatrician finds him underweight (Iwaniec, 1995). Research also shows that child abuse at the family level is steered by interrelated risk factors such as lack of proper parenting skills, alcohol abuse, domestic violence, family breakdown, parent’s experience of maltreatment, parental stress and illness (Tyler, Allison &Winsler, 2006). This can be evidenced in the Harpreet’s family. Harpreet is under depression caused by the loss of his first wife. This in return has caused the breakdown of his family as he no longer supports or appreciates his wife’s efforts in child care and households chores. He simply spends no time with his children and spends his time drinking with his colleagues. Harpreet also finds it difficult to keep his relationship with Paramjit health. Paramjit on the other hand experiences some form of neglect and emotional abuse. She was married of at 17 years with the promise that if she came to England, she would visit her family frequently. However, this has not been the case as Paramjit husband informed her that she could not visit her family due to the hefty travel costs. As a result, Paramjit has numerous health issues such as high blood pressure, an indication that something could be troubling her. Belsky (1980) through his ontogenetic development puts across that parents bring out their parenting role with the inclusion of the influences they have experienced from the own upbringing. This implies that Harpreet and his wife Paramjit are likely to impact their negative ontogenetic development they underwent to their children which can be abusive provoking. For instance, Harpreet’s parent has instructed Paramjit to use the kitchen and avoid the living room. This has in return made Paramjit to isolate herself and her children to the kitchen with the notion that the living room is designed for the visitors. This implies that the children cannot use the living room and if they happen to use it, they are likely to be punished (Connolly, Crichton-Hill & Ward, 2006). Further research indicates that parents who have been maltreated by their parents have 30% chance of ill-treating their own children. In this case, Paramjit feels ill-treated by her parents for being married off at age 17 and promised to visit them often only to find out that she cannot. On the other hand Harpreet feels that he was pushed into a second marriage without having gotten over his first wife. They in return neglect their children needs and barely pays full attention to them (Smith, Cowie, & Blades, 2003). As Wolfe (1991) puts across, families with the interrelated risk factors tend to exhibit day to day interaction pattern that is characterized by low responsiveness to any positive behavior, low-level social exchange and high response to any negative behavior. This in return results to inconsistent and ineffective discipline that results to neglect and emotional imbalance. This is evident in the Harpreet’s family. Harpreet abuses Taran as a way of disciplining him. Both parents pay no attention to their children. In spite of Taran being admitted to a nursery school, he has not yet attended and they barely question Simran’s withdrawal nature. Children level of need (special needs): (Depanilis & Salus, 1992) clearly show that certain children are more emotionally or physically vulnerable than others to neglect and abusive behavior. Particularly, a child’s emotional, physical, mental, social development as well as age greatly increases the likelihood of abuse. Younger children due to their developmental status are vulnerable to emotional and physical abuse. Taran is prone to his father’s physical abuse. He has developmental and health problems which are explicit in his slow growth, constant ear infections, slow response, quietness, language development. His slow growth and language development are probably the cause of his abuse which is likely to be interpreted by his father as ignorance or disrespect. Jaudes & diamond (1985) also puts across that infants who have low birth weights and are constantly ill due to prematurity are usually elicit less positive interest from mothers with insufficient practical and nurturing skills. This is evidence by infrequent Narinder clinic visits by Harpreet and Paramjit and the child’s weight loss and nappy rash. The types of likely significant harm Research carried out by egeland, Van Dulment & Srouge (2005) shows that the presence of a number of risks heightens the probability of abuse. This is supported by the additive model which states that increased risk factors results to increased problematic outcomes. As proven through research, parental challenges such as lack of proper parenting care, relationship breakdown and alcohol abuse among others coupled with children developmental needs and their level of needs implies that the children are likely to experiences different forms of maltreatment such as poor physical health, physical abuse and psychological problems that can results child behavioural problems, school failure, suicidal thoughts, adolescents crime and substance abuse and hinder child development. This is what is likely to happen to Narinder, Aman, Taran and Simran. IV. Part 3- Child Protection Plans A child protection plan as a working tool enables professionals and families to understand their expectations in keeping a child safe, promoting their welfare and supporting the entire family in taking care of them (Depanilis & Salus, 1992). From the analysis, it is evident that Narinder, Aman, Taran and Simran are in significant harm and likely to suffer significant harm in future and therefore need a Children Protection Plan that will help their parents in their parenting skills which are lacking. Narinder, Aman, Taran and Simran should be subjected to the Child Protection Plan and the categories of physical abuse evident through Tarana and Aman, and emotional abuse and neglect which are evident through Narinder nappy rashes, infrequent visits to the clinic, Taran’s lack of proper medical check-ups to determine his developmental problems and lack of concern for Simran’s withdrawal nature. However, before a Child Protection Plan becomes effective, further information in regard to the family must be collected. Further explanations should on Harpreet and Paramjit actions. Relevant information of the parent’s, their careers and capacity in keeping the children safe and promoting their development should be sought after. An analysis on external environment including the wider family should be carried out to determine whether the external factors could also be put into consideration. Advantages of the Children Protection Plan As put across by National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health , a formal Child Protection Plan will enable the protection conference review the health and safety plans as set across in the Children Protection Plan. The Protection plan will also ensure that Narinder, Aman, Taran and Simran continual safeguard against harm is in effect. The Harpreet’s children feelings will be sought and also taken into account in the protection plan. The Protection Plans also involve the assessment of the family and children needs which will make it easier for the Child Protection Plan to cater for Harpreet, his wife and their children’s needs. The Family group conferences held will enable the wider family group including Harpreet’s and Paramjit’s parents coupled with other relatives to contribute in the Child protection plan thus solving rooted conflict in the family. However, if Harpreet and Paramjit find the conferences intimidating as most parents, they can express their views on the Core Group which works with children, relatives and parents to solve children maltreatment cases. Nevertheless, the children Protection Plan is usually based on the Core Assessment that helps draw knowledge that will aid in effective intervention. The plan is also constructed with the presence of the family member and in the proffered Indian language that Paramjit will understand. The Planned outcomes in the children’s Protection Plan will be specific, achievable, measurable, related to the children assessment and time related. This implies that the Harpreet family will be given jargon free, accurate and clear information which is respectful and understandable. As Darly & Horan (2004) puts across, Harpreet and Simran just like any other family will be allowed to bring their advocates along to avoid any biased decisions from being made. In the case of Harpreet and Paramjit, parenting skills programmes such as individual support that will enable them cope with depressions, stress, social isolation, poor problems, health issues and lack of self efficacy will be made available. This will in return foster attachment and a supportive relationship with their children and help them in their school achievements and, nature them to develop interests and talents. Disadvantages of the Children Protection Plan However, irrespective of the presence of the family members, children are given the first priority and the professionals involved make the final decisions. Research indicates that family environments and parenting capacity are intimately connected and are the major factors that contribute to child abuse (Barker, 2009). Particularly, the parenting capacity of Harpreet and Paramjit indicated that they need help. They lack a healthy relationship which is essential for the emotional and physical welfare of their children. This implies that the Children Protection Plan that solely focuses on the children will undermine the probability of addressing the roots cause of the children abuse in the family (lack of a well natured relationship between Harpreet and Paramjit that will help both parents settle their differences and concentrate on bringing up their children. Individuals involved to ensure the Children’s safety: To ensure that the Children safety is guaranteed, confidential meeting between the child protection workers in the social services and other needed professionals is necessary to ensure that the needs of the children are met. The social workers that visited the Harpreet family, other family members such as Harpreet’s and Paramjit’s parents, the health practitioner who carried out the children’s medical assessments, Simran’s teacher who will explain the changes in Simran’s behavior, an educational social worker who will explain to people the need for the Child Protection and a police officer who will maintain order incase of any major disagreements that can lead to physical assaults. The professional involved in child protection will scrutinize the information gathered while other professionals such teachers or doctors will be requested to give their opinion pertaining what they know about the Harpreet’s family and whether the information pose any harm to the children. The Harpreet’s and Paramjit family will be asked to comment on what is said and give their opinion. The professionals and the children protection coordinator will decide on whether the children should be put under the child protection register. A key worker and other needed professionals such as counselors are assigned to help the family until the problem is solved (London Safeguarding Children’s Board, 2007). However, in the even of safeguarding the children, Harpreet and Paramjit family should be aware that there are certain conflicts that are likely to occur. For instance, disagreements might arise at the enquiry stage whereby families, young people and police have different interpretation for the need of joint/single response. Disagreement might also arise if the agencies and professional involved differ on the need for holding a protection conference. For instance, the health visitor had not had any concern that would have prompted child protection concerns. Hence, it is likely possible that the health visitor will not see the need for holding an urgent conference however, from the medical assessments steered by the social workers, Taran and Aman have been subjected to physical abuse and hence, they might find the need for an urgent conference that will discuss the children’s welfare. Disagreement may also arise in regard to the implementation of the Child Protection Plan. For instance, Harpreet and Paramjit may not see the need of the parenting skills programmes offered to them and may also be opposed to social services directed to them such as the Children Social Service due to their previous experience with Aman (London Safeguarding Children’s Board, 2007). V. Conclusion Among the key factors that have influenced my views include consideration of the recognition and assessment of children who are likely to be in significant harm, law pertaining children safety, professional conflicts, children developmental behavior and parenting difficulties. In order to safeguard children from harm as stated by Surrey Safeguarding Children Board (2010), recognition and assessment of children harm are the most fundamental processes that enable children protection professional to come up with the best ways through which they can safeguard children in significant harm. As seen in Harpreet’s and Paramjit’s case, a professional assessment technique that requires professionals to observe and listen, observe and interpret the underlying cause of the happenings, seek of proven incidences or patterns of the children harmed and determined the extent or severity of the children’s harm is needed to allow easy identification of behavioural, physical and psychological abuse cues. The main risks and the likelihood of significant harm should also be assessed. This is done by putting into consideration the main causes or risk factors of children abuse such as parental difficulties, cultural practices, children developmental needs and children level of need (special needs) just as I have done when assessing the occurrence significant harm in Narinder, Aman, Taran and Simran. I have also put into consideration that safeguarding of children from harm should be a collective responsibility of both parents and the children protection professionals. This is evidenced in the Harpreet’s Children Protection Plan which requires both parents to attend parenting programmes and social workers frequent visits to their homes in order to offer them the needed support. As National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (2009) states, children are safeguarded from harm if the root causes are addressed. This has made me disagree with the formal Protection Plan that solely focuses on the children while forgetting that parents (Harpreet and Paramjit) are the roots cause of the children’s harm are parents and should therefore be given much attention. I also put into consideration how professional and personal beliefs and value can negatively affect efforts of safeguarding children and therefore, efforts to solve any arising disagreements should be made. References Barker, R. (2009) Making sense of Every Child Matters. Multi-professional practice guidance. Iwaniec, D. (1995). The Emotionally Abused and Neglected Child. Identification Assessment and Intervention. London: Sons &Wiley Ltd. Connolly M, Crichton-Hill. Y & Ward T. (2006). Culture and Child Protection, Reflexive Responses. London: Jessica Kingsley DePanfilis, D. and Salus, M. (1992). A Coordinated Response to Child Abuse and Neglect: A Basic Manual. London: SAGE Publication Department for Children, Schools and Families (2010). Working Together to Safeguard Children. A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. . Retrieved on 7th January, 2010 from: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4007781 Garbarino, J. (1982), Children and Families in the Social Environment, London: Aldine Publishing Company. Horwath, J. (2001). The child’s World. Assessing Children in Need. London: Kingsley Publishers Smith, P.K., Cowie, H & Blades, M. (2003). Understanding Children’s Development 4th edition. London: Blackwell Publishing Jaudes, P.K. & Diamond, L.S. (1985). 'The Handicapped Child and Child Abuse’ Child Abuse and Neglect Vol. 9 (2). pp. 341-7. London Safeguarding Children’s Board. (2007). London Child Protection Procedures 3rdEdition. Retrieved on 7th January, 2010 from: www.londonscb.gov.uk Munro, E. (2007) child protection. Sage course companions knowledge and skills for success. London: SAGE Publication National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. (2009). When to suspect child maltreatment. Clinical Guideline. Vol. 2(5). Pg. 2-156. Surrey Safeguarding Children Board. (2010). Recognition of Significant Harm. . Retrieved on 7th January, 2010 from: http://www1.surreycc.gov.uk/cafis/manual/chapters/p_rec_sig_harm.html Trotter, C. (2004) .Helping Abused Children and Their Families. Towards an evidence-based practice model. London: SAGE Publication Wolfe, D.A. (1991). Preventing Physical and Emotional Abuse of Children, London: Guildford Press. Read More