With the severity of the maltreatment, there is little doubt the case study would meet the ‘significant harm’ criteria, and warrant Child Protection intervention. Resting on a judgment decision, however, there is always scope for Dave’s case to not be considered ‘extreme’ enough to qualify for the high statutory threshold, imposed by budget cuts (Stevenson, 2015). Part of the reason cases ‘slip through the net’ is practitioners, consistently working amongst issues of neglect, routinely become ‘blinded’ and underestimate its impact (Ofsted, 2014). Despite receiving training in the subject of neglect, practitioners can lack confidence ascertaining the point where ‘it becomes unacceptable and…will have long-term consequences’ for children’s wellbeing
…show more content…
The aims of Section 47’s are, therefore, to work with and support families so the child remains, whenever safely possible, in the family home, whilst adhere to family right to respect and involvement (UNCRC,1990:A9; NSCB, no date). Standard practice encourages children and those with parental responsibility to willingly give consent for individual assessments for all children within the household. Conversely, permission is increasingly obtained unethically through striking fear of removing children under the misuse of Children Act 1989 section 20 powers (Stevenson, 2015). Nevertheless, with maltreatment filtering throughout families, separate assessments are essential in case caring capacity differs with each child (NSPCC, 2014). For example, the testimony implies abuse was not targeted towards the brothers, though simply witnessing domestic violence, including hearing Dave’s distress, or seeing his injuries, means the brothers, in their own right, are victims in need of protecting (NSPCC, …show more content…
Lacking inquisitiveness the social worker failed to acknowledge the significance of the concerns about Dave’s wellbeing so wrongly closed the case (Munro, 2011:17). It could be said that this decision was made on account of Catherine’s ‘disguised compliance’, where she convinced Dave beforehand that their home life would improve to prevent him from disclosing detrimental information. With this same coaching behavioural tactic appearing in various high profile cases, like Victoria Climbié’s, trained professionals are expected to recognise, and stop ploys diverting attention away from major concerns (Laming,
The aims of Section 47’s are, therefore, to work with and support families so the child remains, whenever safely possible, in the family home, whilst adhere to family right to respect and involvement (UNCRC,1990:A9; NSCB, no date). Standard practice encourages children and those with parental responsibility to willingly give consent for individual assessments for all children within the household. Conversely, permission is increasingly obtained unethically through striking fear of removing children under the misuse of Children Act 1989 section 20 powers (Stevenson, 2015). Nevertheless, with maltreatment filtering throughout families, separate assessments are essential in case caring capacity differs with each child (NSPCC, 2014). For example, the testimony implies abuse was not targeted towards the brothers, though simply witnessing domestic violence, including hearing Dave’s distress, or seeing his injuries, means the brothers, in their own right, are victims in need of protecting (NSPCC, …show more content…
Lacking inquisitiveness the social worker failed to acknowledge the significance of the concerns about Dave’s wellbeing so wrongly closed the case (Munro, 2011:17). It could be said that this decision was made on account of Catherine’s ‘disguised compliance’, where she convinced Dave beforehand that their home life would improve to prevent him from disclosing detrimental information. With this same coaching behavioural tactic appearing in various high profile cases, like Victoria Climbié’s, trained professionals are expected to recognise, and stop ploys diverting attention away from major concerns (Laming,