S.2. and s. 38 clarify as to whether the supervisor’s intervention applies to the case study referring to the children’s exposure to pornography with the parents failing to take necessary steps to prevent it and lack of nutrition in their diets. However, the Act does not clearly state at what point the parents’ failing to meet the child's basic needs puts them at danger in regards to frequency and duration, this leaves interpretation of when to apply the Act open to SW subjectivity.
It is clear from s.2.3 (a) that action must be taken to terminate the risk to security and development; however, it does not state what these actions should or could be.
It is clear from s.2.3 (a) that action must be taken to terminate the risk to security and development; however, it does not state what these actions should or could be.