Child Protection and long term orders

Currently I am working with a client whose child is under the guardianship of the Minister to the age of eighteen. This is an important case because it represents all that is unhelpful about Child Protection decision making and the long term care of children. We had applied for legal aid and were hopeful that once this was granted there would be a pathway to have the order varied. The lawyer contacted me and informed me that the only pathway would have been to have challenged the order within twenty one days of it being granted. To apply to the supreme court to have this challenged would have cost $2,000 for the application alone. When unemployed and at he lowest end of the socio-economic pile who has the money to seek such an application? That is just the application fee. Legal aid wont fund the actual court proceedings. The reality is that very few people, if any, can afford to challenge the legal system and child protection services once their child has been removed and a long term order is in place.

But it becomes more complicated and unjust than what I have mentioned. There is virtually no way that a parent can change an order, regardless of how much they have reached sainthood. However I am told that the Department is able to seek variations to orders and do this regularly. They can return to the court and change aspects of an order at a whim particularly if they believe the current order is not in the best interest of he child. They do not, and refuse to, change orders if the parent has changed his or her lifestyle and is even able to provide a better home than the one the child is currently living. It often appears that the department believes that in all circumstances they are the better parent. We all know that that isn’t the case.

How have we allowed a system to develop which is clearly inequitable. Are they afraid that if everyone had access to an appeal process that the department would be held accountable for the decisions they make. The department will argue that the parent has many opportunities to prove that they can parent differently and to some extent that is true but often the time frame for this is too small and the decision makers become too entrenched in their decision that they refuse to offer appropriate pathways towards re-unification. In my clients case this is what happened.

I admit that this is relatively new territory for me but I found it interesting that when I contacted the department and presented them with the legal interpretation I had been given the person I spoke to wasn’t certain as to the exact process either and suggested that I contact the clerk of the court to find out. If a senior Social Worker in the department cant be definitive about the legal ramifications and requirements then we have to wonder why we would expect front line staff to know either.

What this means for practice is that Social Workers are obligated to inform their clients of the implications of the workers actions. That includes the legal ramifications of the decisions of the court and the appeal process. Me client told me that if she had known this she would have responded differently to the court process in the beginning and challenged the GOM 18 order more vehemently. If I had known what I know now I would have have talked to her about these issues and also asked the social workers concerned why they weren’t talking to the client about the ramifications for the client and child.

When I hear Social Workers tell parents that even though the department are seeking a GOM 18 the client can still return to court I want to vomit. It is a gross misrepresentation of the actual situation, in fact it is a lie, either based on ignorance or just plain guilt. I wonder if Child Protection workers really understand the implications of their decisions and the long term impact this has on the parents and more importantly the child.

The client I am referring to here lives in a neat and very tidy home. Has great parenting skills. Is applying for university next year. Is very intelligent. No longer self harms. Has improved her mental health to the point one could argue it is no longer problematic. But under the current system no matter what she changes she will never be able to get her daughter back in her care. In fact the department thinks the child is better in a family where corporal punishment is the norm, leaving the child in the care of others for days on end is okay, and that the carers are aging and not able to provide the same care as her mother, is all in the best interest of the child.

The department is able to return to court and vary the order but are unwilling to do so. The client told me that she doesn’t care if the department remain involved she just wants her daughter back. But they don’t get it and I am left wondering, why? I sense that some of the people from the department, who have met my client, since I have been advocating for her, also are wondering what is going on here. But no one has the guts to challenge their workers decisions in the first instance, and more importantly no one has the guts to act in what is in the best interest of the child. 

I have worked with some fantastic social workers at Families SA. It distresses me that the decision making process, which ultimately changes peoples lives for ever, is allowed to be made by inexperienced unequipped Social Workers. I know if some of these more experienced and capable Social Workers had been given this case that there would have been a different outcome. 

Response to Jeremy Summut and Child Protection

I was listening to Jeremy Summut talk about child protection on radio national tonight and then searched for more information on the man and other things he may have said about the subject. He seems to have easy access to the ABC so they obviously regard him as somewhat of an expert on the subject. One of his entries on the ABC.

His statements on the whole are unhelpful because he seems to lose sight of the fundamental problem. Summut believes that the Child Protection Services are more interested in preserving the families than they are in protecting children from harm. My work with Families SA has proved to be a little different from that. On the whole the focus is definitely on what is in the best interest of the child, well that is the mantra presented at most meetings with Social Workers. I certainly support that notion, and I don’t think anyone would dare to suggest anything different.

What Summut and others fail to talk about is the decision making process and the experience of those making the decisions. Then there is the supervisory support offered those making the decisions and the way the supervision of social workers and psychologists is conducted. Then there is the one I love and that is that none of these people are accountable to anyone. They are professionals but most of them, particularly social workers are not compelled to belong to their peak body, the AASW. They are shielded by their organisation and only answerable to people who support the negative aspects of the work they do.

If Mr Summut wants the system to change then he needs to understand more about the profession which underpins the problem, Social Work. Social Work has a specific way of critical analyses which incorporates a more systemic view of the world and which takes into account all the facets of a person’s life. The balancing act between what is in the best interest of the child and the parents propensity for change cannot be ignored but in many cases is not even considered. As a Social Worker I have seen many parents change as a result of the intervention of social workers at Families SA, now that has definitely been in the best interest of the children. I have also seen parents change and the changes not even recognised by the Social Workers. Inconsistency is another issue. The inability to have consistent protocols and values is appalling and puts more children and their families at risk than anything else.

Then there is my pet problem which seems to be ignored by Mr Summut and that is societies failure to understand that if we are not able to change the parent then they will continue to have more children who will become GOM kids. So while Mr Summut dismisses parents as being important perhaps he could calculate for us all the cost benefit if we worked with every family who have multiple children in government care and what we could save if 50% of those families found better ways of parenting after their first child was removed. The problem Mr Summut is that we give up on them too easily, just like you. That we don’t cherish the family and what it represents in all its forms. I know that when we work with the family productively we have great outcomes. What we need to do is find ways to engage and understand the systemic problems which have brought the children into the gaze of the Minister in the first place.

Child protection is all about protecting children from harm. It is also about demonstrating better ways of engagement with parents so that we can develop partnerships which work towards change. I certainly don’t have an issue where it is evident that parents are not able to change at this stage. I have a problem where unrealistic goals are set in a short period of time and parents are set up to fail.

Summut’s response to this problem is too simplistic and way left of centre. It is narrow and regardless of the research he says he has done it is tainted with a narrow view of the problem.

Who notices what you do?

I have often thought about the loneliness of the work we do. In my world everyday I am confronted by the sad stories of my clients. They come to me because they want help. Whatever that looks like. I listen and try as best as is possible to understand what they have experienced. For the hour they spend with me I focus exclusively on their experiences and the emotional pain many of these experiences have caused them. Clients express all the range of emotions you can imagine during that hour. Some leave relieved that they have been able to expel their feelings. From these emotions they develop understandings that they wouldn’t have if it wasn’t for this experience. Others come to me because they just want to be understood and validated in some way. There are so many reasons why clients visit with me and not all of them are helpful (eg. to validate bad behaviour).

The clients I enjoy working with the most are those who are the most disempowered in the community - those who are looking for a sense of justice and someone who will go beyond being a counsellor and who will advocate for them. These clients want a voice amongst a screaming bureaucracy and professionals who have all the power and impose that power with little to no understanding of the clients experiences. I love this work because it represents the best form of Social Work.

It has its problems though because there is no funding for this work in private practice and all I ever receive from other professionals is negativity. I will be waiting for a long time before I hear any of those professionals I work with while advocating for clients tell me that they appreciate the work I do. I know I am an irritation to many of them because I am there to speak for my client. One would think that within the Social Work profession we would celebrate difference. To have someone critique your work and to suggest other ways of working I would have thought was a positive aspect of Social Work. We haven’t developed as a profession where we see this as an essential aspect of he work we do even though it is codified in the AASW code of ethics.

I am aware that amongst child protection workers I am often seen as “the enemy”. I am frustrated that the work I do is not valued. I am angry that I am viewed as an irritation. I am resentful that there are some social workers who haven’t even met me pass judgement on me because of what others have said about me. I am disappointed in my own profession because no one has supported me in the work I do. I have attended many meetings over the years with other social workers who bag Families SA in ways that I would never think of doing but none of them have ever confronted the organisation or workers about unhelpful practices. They tend to hide amongst anonymity and the sly comment when they think they are talking to a sympathetic listener, but they do nothing. 

So I am like the “Shag on the rock”, easy pickings and a clear shot, for anyone who wants to take out their frustrations. Not only do I not get paid for the work I do with this client group but it is emotionally exhausting. Recently a client told me that her partner stated that I wasn’t doing enough for them to have their child returned to them. Not only have I been working for them for twelve months without any payment what so ever, I field calls from them evenings and on weekends. I have meetings about their case at the highest possible level. I feel their pain and frustration. I keep this to myself but it has a toll. I go through periods when I lack enthusiasm and start staring down a very dark and deep hole. This is not a good place to be.

I am not seeking sympathy but I am seeking understanding. I know that I am reasonably competent at what I do. My goal has always been to work as a partnership with other professionals because it is through that sort of collegiate enterprise that we will have the best outcomes. I know from experience that is the case. We need to understand what it means to have other critique the work we do and we need to understand that the more we understand the practices of others, either helpful or not, we will be develop a better and more comprehensive idea of our own practice. This produces better outcomes for clients.

Reflections on Child Protection work

It has always concerned me that professionals who I work in child protection don’t understand the work I do. About nine months ago a client told me that a solicitor they were working with told them that I have a vendetta against Families SA. I know from my interaction with other Social Workers at Families SA that for some strange reason that seems to be the common misunderstanding. I am writing blog so that it can be clearly understood what I do and to correct this impression of who I am and the work I do.

Over the past eighteen months I have taken on advocacy work for those people who have had children removed by Families SA. I have attended more family care meetings and Child Protection Unit conferences than I can remember. I believe I have a sound understanding of what Child Protection is about. I am not an expert but I know enough to understand processes and the logic which places children under the care of the Minister. Above everything else I have very strong and entrenched views of what constitutes competent Social Work practice. This doesn’t mean that I am correct in my views even though to this point no one has challenged me on them.

Over this period I have met many Social Workers who work for Families SA. Of those people the vast majority are fabulous Social Workers who work with all the skills and competence one would expect from a Social Worker working in a very difficult environment with very complicated cases, and a lot of them. I love seeing people work in this way and with each of those people I have commented on their skills and the pleasure I receive from watching them work. I sat in on a psychological assessment with a client recently and I witnessed some of the most competent interviewing I have ever seen. It was fantastic and very reassuring. To think that I have a vendetta or don’t like “Families SA” and therefore its workers could not be further from the truth.

I know that only once have I had anyone offer a criticism of what I do. A Social Worker told me at the beginning of an inquiry into a clients access plan that she felt intimidated because I ask questions. Well that was probably the most creative feedback I have every had. It certainly silences you when someone tells you that asking questions is harmful to them. A part from that thoughtful feedback I have never had anyone tell me that what I was doing was disrespectful of them or harmful to the client. No that isn’t true on at least three occasions I have had people tell me that I am not interested in what is in the best interest of the child. That also couldn’t be further from the truth. There have been some clients whom I wouldn’t advocate for the child to be returned, however I will advocate for the client to be heard and for appropriate processes put into place for the parents to have access to their child. I will advocate for the child when I believe they are placed in an unsafe environment. I have a few of those.

It is true that I have registered complaints about practice and process. I have registered complaints when I have been yelled at, when I have been told that the social worker will not engage with me, when clients have not been heard, when clients have been disempowered and disenfranchised, when proper assessments haven’t been followed, when bias is blatantly obvious, when the clients strengths and needs are not articulated, when case plans are shoddy and inappropriate, when children are placed in relative care with a carer who has a history of violence.

To my knowledge I am the only social worker who works with these clients in an advocacy role and who is in Private Practice. For some strange unknown reason this scares people. Perhaps I am prepared to confront these issues rather than sweep them under the carpet. As a professional Social Worker I find it difficult to turn a blind eye to people who have legitimate issues which need to be addressed. ALL of the people I work with come from low social economic backgrounds and are usually poorly educated. They are the most powerless people in our community facing one of the most traumatic event any parent could imagine, losing a child. I make no apologies for confronting the gatekeepers of this system with the problems the client is facing.

My role has always been to work collaboratively with Families SA Social Workers so we can have outcomes which are in the best interest of the child. This means that I will on occasions disagree with how they practice but only if they practice outside the guidelines of the AASW Code of Ethics and their own Child Protection Manual. This includes abusive and disempowering behaviour. It is unfortunate that they are not accountable to anyone until now. They are not accountable to me personally but they are accountable to the profession.

I wish to be clear that it doesn’t matter what organisation you work for if I am working with a client who you are working with I will celebrate good practice but if you step outside of standard social work practice and are harming clients I will let you know. It is pleasing though that this is only a few. The same rules apply to me. I make mistakes and often will say something in the moment which I regret later. I have made assessments which I discovered were too hasty and for which I had little information. From every mistake I make I hope I learn something about myself and my practice.

What is pleasing is that no one reads my blogs but one day perhaps these notations will come in handy at least for my own amusement.

Emotions and Kevin Rudd

It was a day of mixed emotions as we saw the end of Rudd and the beginning of Gillard. I was interested in getting rid of Howard and excited about a new government in 2007. There was something refreshing about a new approach to politics with Rudd, sort of a sense of the unexpected we experienced during the Whitlam years.

Then it all turned sour as Rudd lost confidence in himself and the public began to see through the facade. We began to witness a man who had very little confidence in others and failed to consult with those who new better than him. Politicians are so closely scrutinised these days that we are able to see the skid marks in their underwear.

Kevin became dogged with his sense of his own importance and forgot that the skid marks were becoming more and more obvious. Every time he bent over the cracks became more obvious.

Regardless how we saw him and how disappointed we became in him it was with a great deal of sadness that we witnessed a broken man who, regardless of his lack of people skills was shattered that he wasn’t able to fulfil his dreams. I don’t think he was a “bad” man at all but he did work his staff hard and expected them to work hours that were simply unrealistic, all to fit his distorted view of the world. He did expect others to implement programs without much thought and planning even though he still worked his staff to death. Perhaps they were too tired to give his projects the clear headed approach they deserved.

There he was before all of us crying. No matter what you thought of Rudd if you were a half decent human being you had to have some sort of emotional connection with the humiliation he was feeling. Even Abbott had some emotional twinge, that may remind him that his day may also not be too far away, especially if he loses the next election. But what does it mean to shed tears like this? What are the emotions which a person experiences who holds such a high powered position? Why is it that the only person who has displayed such open emotional distress was Bob Hawke? Maybe its a Labour Party thing. Is it just the lofty position from which they have fallen or is it the fact that a large ego took such a beating that they are grieving their own deflated sense of self?

At his final press conference her reflected on the stolen generation and the people who were spread out on the lawn in front of parliament house. He clearly saw that as a very emotional experience. He could have talked about the emotions he felt a long time ago. I suppose we have to wait until we read his memoirs. The Rudd we saw today was human and not the monotone boring policy driven git we had become tired off. If he had been able to express himself in the way he did today over the past couple of years perhaps he wouldn’t have had to fall from such a high place.

The lesson we all can learn from this is that emotions are an important aspect of who we are. We try to hide from them and we make out that they shouldn’t play a part in our life particularly if we hold public office. The reality is that people connect with you when you display emotions as they did today. This doesn’t mean that our life has to be full of tears but I am sure that talking about feelings would be just as significant. To identify what our feelings are and describe them in appropriate ways allows us to see others for what they really are and not just see the facade. Feelings have great meaning and it is therefore the expressing of them which gives meaning to our lives.

Hears hoping that Julia doesn’t buy into the same political philosophy as Rudd and allows us to see her emotional self.

Attachment Theory

To better understand where child protection comes from regarding attachment theory I have undertaken the daunting task of reading what I could find on Attachment Theory. I have discovered that it is difficult critiquing something of which you may not have all that much understanding and which also makes some sense. I have often wondered about the application of the theory and whether it was in keeping with Social Work theory.

I become concerned where I witness any theory being used as a means of controlling individuals or a group of individuals. There are occasions when I see Social Workers doing this and to my horror I find myself confronting them and making myself seem like something I don't want to be, namely their enemy. What I see around attachment theory is this theory being used as a means of controlling women who are struggling with parenting. What I often see is young women, who have never had children and profess to be social workers, controlling the lives of the most dis-empowered group in our society - young women who are mothers.

Their seems to be an erroneous belief that because a child reaches a certain age they are then damaged for life and will then struggle to have meaningful relationships so somehow these young social workers role is to save these children from this experience. The truth is that we build attachment based on our experiences of the time. For a child to continue to have carers who provide appropriate attachment will provide a positive experience for the child. The onus is therefore on the child protection agency to ensure that the biological parents and any other carers are providing the appropriate attachment and when biological parents are able to be consistent regarding their attachment then it is reasonable to give the child back them. The notion that attachment is about carers behaviour and that the attachment is to the way a child is treated and this could be by a number of carers providing it is consistent rather than by the one carer. Most people in Child Protection would disagree with this notion. If they agree they would have to re think the way they work.

Working with Families SA

Over the years I have always had a mixed experience working with Families SA. There are times I find working with them a credit to our profession and then there are other times when I find myself bewildered and wondering if we all come from the same profession. I am convinced that some of us certainly attended a completely different University who had a unique and damaging way of presenting Social Work values and  principles. Or is it that in the effort to discover what social work means to us we take on a view which is more in keeping with our own skewed view of life? I believe it is the latter because I am at fault here as well. Have I taken on the role of Social Work because it has a certain meaning to me? That I believe in Social Justice, that people should be empowered to have the life they want, that it is helpful not to judge others and that I need to accept the differences of others. There is much more that can be added here which describes what social work means to me but that isn’t all that important to the issue I wish to raise in this post.

I wonder how we become our values regardless of our professional values. That somehow we make those values fit with us that we convince ourselves that we are acting in the best interest of our clients when to others we are doing the opposite. We then have to protect our position or otherwise we are not being true to ourselves and our version of the profession. We enclose ourselves in the bastardised version we begin to believe that this is our sense of truth and that anything outside of this is an anathema to all that we believe in. This becomes the cry not only for the worker but also for all those who agree with them. This builds a cultural belief which when confronted now has a mass of believers who will resist any idea which is counter to their own. Now there are a community of like believers. Welcome to Families SA.

Recently I attended a meeting with Families SA social workers to discuss access arrangements for a client as well as canvas the idea that a GOM 18 order can be amended to include re-unification of the child with her parents. It is difficult for me to describe the emotions I felt when I noticed the social workers berating the client for accommodation offered her recently by Housing SA when they were not able to offer housing when she was in crisis and had her daughter removed. The issue was that the housing was too far away from the carers and that the child had to travel too far from the carers to the parents home. This was their error not the clients.

This is a common story and a theme for many of the social workers I work with. They are stuck in a version of social work which lacks compassion and understanding. Which lacks a sense of creativity and reasonableness which would best fit with the client. There is a rigidity which limits the possibilities and presents “failure” as the only alternative. The challenge is to take the fight to our own profession and give our clients a louder voice so that they are heard amongst the chatter of poorly qualified social workers the and dangerous practices they espouse.