Report Finds Social Workers Discriminate Against Disabled Parents.

29 Saturday Sep 2018

Posted by Natasha in child welfare, Researching Reform, social services

New research from the Tilda Goldberg Centre for Social Work and Social Care at the University of Bedfordshire, has found that social services often assume having a disability is a child protection risk. The research also confirms that social services often monitor families rather than provide meaningful support that would keep families together and avoid a crisis later on.

In an interview with the BBC, one parent with a condition that limits her mobility and strength explained how she chose to hide her pregnancy from social services, fearing they would refer her to the borough’s child protection team and then take her baby away from her, once she was born. The mother, who already had a care plan in place with adult social services for her disability, was also aware that councils try to refer cases away from their departments in order to avoid having to pay for further assistance, making a referral to a child protection team more likely.

The mother told the BBC:

“The fear you carry with you…cannot be understated.”

“Every disabled person I spoke to, when I was pregnant, had a concern.

“There is always some implication because you have an impairment, that you may not be a fantastically good parent.”

She went on to say:

“For the first 10 to 12 months while Sally wasn’t mobile, my existing day-care package and support was enough.”

“Once she moved on from milk and was mobile, it wasn’t.”

One of the things the mother needed help with was making her baby’s food.

“It seems like such a little thing to make your child something to eat, but if you can’t stand for long, and your hands don’t work very well, it can be one of the most distressing things.”

“It was as if because I couldn’t provide that, I wasn’t competent as a mother.”

In the end the mother felt she had no choice but to call for help:

“When that contact came back, I remember ringing my health visitor and just sobbing hysterically. It was devastating.”

“I don’t think that any parent sees being transferred to children’s services as a positive thing.”

The mother goes on to tell the BBC that this kind of prejudice is reserved only for disabled people, however this is not the case. Legal Action for Women have been highlighting discrimination against single, poor parents for some time, and we know that parents home schooling their children have also been targeted by social services across the country.

Unlike most cases, the social worker the mother was allocated agreed her need was because of her disability, not her ability as a mother, and promised to fight her manager’s intention to pass her on to children’ services. The issue of how parenting capacity is determined has begun to be viewed as controversial, with emerging research in America suggesting that this kind of assessment is in fact outdated and unhelpful.

Crucially, the social worker in this instance successfully argued that the service user’s needs as a mother should be met by adult social services.

This argument is hugely important, as it highlights a different way of thinking which allows for both mother and child to be cared for.

The mother makes the following observations about her daughter and the care they now both receive:

“She’s the greatest joy of my life – she’s wonderful, happy and loved… And having social care support in her life means she is loved by lots of adults. The care staff are like our extended family.”

And that’s how it’s done.

(We’ve asked the Centre whether they would mind sharing the research with us, as we can’t seem to find it on their website, and will let you know when they reply).

Many thanks to Dana for alerting us to this development.

Renowned Scientist Helps Parents Accused Of Non Accidental Injuries Get Their Children Back.

28 Friday Sep 2018

Posted by Natasha in child abuse, Researching Reform

≈ 4 Comments

A world famous scientist now working as an expert witness in court rooms around the world is using a theory he developed to disprove claims of non accidental injury in babies and children going through child protection proceedings.

Non accidental injuries, unlike accidental injuries, are deliberately inflicted by another person, and can include physical damage to children like bruises, burns, or fractures. These injuries are often considered to be synonymous with child abuse.

Dr Michael Holick is the Director of the Bone Health Care Clinic at Boston University Medical Center, and the leading authority on Vitamin D. In the last seven years, Dr Holick says he has consulted or testified as an expert witness in over 300 child-abuse cases in the US, the UK, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, and Canada. And in almost every case, he has diagnosed the child in question with a rare genetic disorder called hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

Considered to be one of the most prominent and sought-after expert witnesses in the US for the defense in child-abuse cases, Holick told The New Yorker that around 50% of the parents he helps have a positive experience, such as getting their children back or having abuse charges dismissed. Sometimes he claims a much higher success rate. “Before I started testifying in these court cases on behalf of the family 100% of these cases had been won by the prosecution…. Now that I am testifying on behalf of the family 90% of the cases have been won by the parents and their children have been returned to them without further incident.”

Holick says children with EDS have weaker bones which can fracture much more easily. He also believes that, “thousands, if not tens of thousands,” of parents around the world have been wrongly accused of fracturing their children’s bones. When he doesn’t diagnose a child with EDS, he concludes that the bone fractures are down to rickets or a Vitamin D deficiency. Holick also believes that in every case he has come across, not one child had been subjected to abuse. Crucially, he also says that parents who approach him for help have never tried to fake an illness in their children in order to avoid prosecution.

Not everyone thinks Holick is right. The National Institutes of Health estimates that EDS affects 0.02% of the population worldwide, at most, and so Holick’s near 100% diagnosis rate for the condition does not sit well within that mathematical probability of chance. That Holick often does not see the children he is diagnosing, choosing to attribute conditions over the phone instead, also gives his critics more leverage to query the accuracy of his findings.

A 2008 case Holick worked on, in which he diagnosed a baby who had sustained 26 fractures, with EDS, later led to the father being sentenced to 24 years in prison. Holick maintains that the sheer volume of fractures could not have been caused by external trauma without resulting in the baby’s death. The heightened levels of flexibility in small children too, make it much harder to diagnose EDS, and almost impossible to diagnose children under the age of five, according to other experts in the field.

There are four studies which Holick uses to support his conclusions, and while the authors of those studies say his approach is not backed by published scientific research, they are not entirely dismissive of his theory. Cristina Eller Vainicher, who is the lead author of one of the paper’s that Holick often references, told The New Yorker that “she can’t entirely discount his thesis, because some studies have suggested that a subset of EDS patients do experience fragility fractures during childhood. Still, she wrote in an e-mail, “This does not mean that we could state all children with hypermobile EDS are at high risk of fractures.””

The current scientific gaps in Holick’s theory have not prevented him from being deeply influential in non accidental injury cases, which is most likely down to his formidable reputation as the man who discovered the active form of Vitamin D, resulting in treatments for bone disease in kidney patients and for psoriasis. He went on to discover that orange juice helped the body absorb Vitamin D, and was invited to consult for NASA, who asked him to examine bone loss in space. That he was called a “legend” at the last annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists perhaps sums up his powerhouse status in America.

BAILII offers three public judgments in which Holick has been referenced, either as a consultant to the case or because of his 2017 research paper, entitled, “Multiple fractures in infants who have Ehlers-Danlos/hypermobility syndrome and or vitamin D deficiency: A case series of 72 infants whose parents were accused of child abuse and neglect.”

All the cases have been heard in family courts, with the first taking place in Northern Ireland at the end of last year: A Health and Social Care Trust v A Mother and A Father (In the matter of two children: Non-accidental Injury: Causation).

The second case published lists a hearing at the Family Court in East London in March: A, Re [2018] EWFC B34 (16 March 2018).

The final case mentioned, ES (A Child), Re [2017] EWFC B96 (03 November 2017), was heard in the Family Court at Milton Keynes.

His views don’t appear to be well received by judges in the above cases, with one judge even going so far as to say that Holick was unable to produce evidence of any prior cases he assisted on.

You can access Dr Holick’s research papers here, and follow him on Twitter @VitaminD_Holick and Facebook at DrMHolick.

Dr Holick can also be contacted via his website (scroll down to the bottom to access the form) or emailed at mfholick@bu.edu.

Dr Michael Holick. Image Credit: Boston University.

New Report Targets Parents And Children Fleeing Child Protection Investigations

27 Thursday Sep 2018

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform, social services

≈ 7 Comments

A new report produced by London based charity, Children & Families Across Borders (CFAB), urges greater cooperation between the UK and international authorities in cases where parents and children flee abroad to avoid child protection investigations. The call comes as the UK prepares to leave the EU, potentially reducing the ability of local authorities to locate children who leave the island after being classified as vulnerable by social workers.

CFAB is the UK branch of the International Social Service network and works with partners overseas in over 100 countries on cases that require cross-border cooperation. The Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, which funded the report, is one of the largest independent grant-makers in the UK.

Parents leaving the UK with their children after social services raise child protection concerns is on the rise in Britain, as families claim financial incentives for adoptions are leading councils to remove children unjustly. The adoption and fostering industry, which has suffered under budget cuts, has also been criticised for unethical practices, including pushing incentives for adoptions and allowing social workers in councils to start their own agencies to recruit and place children.

Researchers and academics are also starting to question the effectiveness of social work practices in the UK. A newly discovered research paper, “Parenting Capacity Assessment as a Colonial Strategy”, looks at whether the current process of assessing parents’ capacity to parent is perhaps an outdated way of supporting vulnerable families.

The CFAB report, “Cross-border child safeguarding: Challenges, effective social work practice and outcomes for children”, is part of an emerging body of research looking at children’s social work. The study was undertaken in 2017-2018 in order to better understand policy and practice related to cross-border children and social work cases involving families.

Here are some key stats from the report:

A total of 330 children were involved in the study
The researchers audited 200 cases, 100 of which involved children in need of protection who had travelled to another country or had come into the UK
More than three-quarters (157 cases) involved an outgoing case with a request from the UK to another country
The age demographic with the largest representation was 0-5 years (133 children)
The majority of children in the study were non-British EU nationals (142 children), followed by British nationals (102 children)
It took an average of 45 days for an international child protection alert to be issued when a child deemed at risk had travelled abroad, perhaps due to an inability to locate the child’s whereabouts overseas

One of the most interesting facts mentioned in the report stems around what happens once a child flees the UK. The study says that a large number of cases involving a welfare visit following a child protection alert to another country or to a UK local authority resulted in no further action. Of the 53 cases where a welfare visit was completed following a child protection alert, the vast majority (70%) ended in no further action. The study is quick to suggest that this finding may in part be due to poor assessment standards in foreign countries, but does not consider the possibility that social services in the UK may have incorrectly assessed families in the first instance.

While the study claims to cover two areas – children crossing international borders, who social workers flag as in need of protection; and children in the social care system who can be placed with family in another country – the emphasis appears to be on families who leave the UK to avoid child protection proceedings. It also appears to focus on trying to retain control of cases once they go overseas by inviting the production of a new framework in which social workers in other jurisdictions agree to effectively hand over the reins to UK social services.

The authors of the report were CFAB’s CEO, Carolyn Housman and social worker Angela Wilson, who also works at CFAB. The Research Advisory Group were:

David Jones, CFAB Trustee
Marion Davis, CFAB Trustee
Brian Littlechild, University of Hertfordshire
Karen Lyons, London Metropolitan University
Dez Holmes, Research in Practice
Emily Halliday, CAFCASS
Helen Johnston, CAFCASS.

The Buzz

25 Tuesday Sep 2018

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform, The Buzz

≈ Leave a comment

News items that should be right on your radar:

Female majority to hear Supreme Court case for first time in history – case involves a 16 year old girl with Asperger’s Syndrome and learning difficulties. (Court of Appeal Judgment)
No Fault Divorce To Be Implemented (House of Commons Briefing Paper)
Rise in Men Reporting Domestic Abuse

Buzz

Victims Of Domestic Violence Turning To Injunctions For Protection

24 Monday Sep 2018

Posted by Natasha in Domestic Violence, Researching Reform

≈ 17 Comments

Welcome to another week.

Figures recently obtained from the Ministry of Justice confirm that there has been a sharp rise in the number of domestic abuse victims seeking non molestation orders through the family courts. It has been suggested that victims are turning to the court system because police are failing to enforce the law.

Ministry of Justice data has revealed that the number of non-molestation orders granted last year was 25,707, indicating an increase of almost 10% since 2016. The number of orders issued also represents the highest for a decade.

The government is now being pressured by campaigners to pay for police training, rather than pass the financial burden on to police forces who are already struggling as a result of budget cuts and mounting work loads.

Victims of domestic violence can apply for an injunction, or non molestation order, through the courts, to protect themselves and their children from an abuser. The injunction can also be used to decide who lives in the family home and who can enter surrounding areas, and is called an occupation order. The person named in the injunction can be arrested if they break either of these orders.

Applying for an order is free.

In order to apply for either or both of these orders, you will need to:

See if you’re eligible to apply first
- Check here, for non molestation orders
- Check here, for occupation orders
Download and fill out form FL401, and then make two copies
Write your witness statement explaining to the court what has happened, and ask for the relevant order.
At the bottom of your witness statement you will need to write a statement of truth. The following words can be used: “I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.” Then sign and date the statement.
IMPORTANT: If you would like to keep your child’s and your address and telephone private, then fill out form C8 along with form FL401
Send your forms to a court which deals with domestic violence cases. You can find your nearest court-house here.

EMERGENCY ORDERS

If you or your child are facing an immediate threat of harm, you can ask for an emergency order. This can be done using your form FL401, by ticking the box in Section 3 (The Order/s For Which You Are Applying), which reads:

Tick this box if you wish the court to hear your application without notice being given to the respondent. The reasons relied on for an application being heard without notice must be stated in the statement in support.

This process is called a ‘without notice’ or ‘ex-parte’ application, as you don’t have to tell the person you want protection from, that you’re applying for the emergency order. Inside the form, explain why you need an emergency order. This kind of order usually lasts until you go to court for your hearing.

Once the court holds a hearing, (which you will need to attend), it may then issue an order. If an order is issued, you will then have to tell the other person involved that an order has been made.

IF YOU ARE 17 YEARS OLD AND UNDER

Anyone under the age of 16 will need to apply to the High Court for permission to apply for these injunctions.

Anyone aged 16 or 17 will need a litigation friend to represent them in court. A litigation friend can be a parent, family member, or personal friend.

Once you’ve sent in your form/s, you will need to arrange for the person you’ve brought the injunction against to be notified about your application. You can do this by sending a copy of your application and witness statement to the person named inside the application. Delivering a legal document in this way is called ‘service’, and as a process it involves making sure the person gets a copy of the documents in person.

If you have a solicitor they will do this on your behalf, or you can ask the court to serve the documents for you.

The court will also give you a document called a ‘Notice of Proceedings’, which will include a date and time for you to come to the court to talk about your case.

If the person you have brought the injunction against chooses to challenge your application, you may need legal representation. Legal aid is offered if you have been a victim of domestic abuse or violence.

As always, if you are worried that you or your child could be in serious danger or you have already experienced abuse, please report your concerns to the police.

If you’d like more advice on how to apply for the above orders, you can contact the following charities: Refuge, Women’s Aid and the Men’s Advice Line.

DV Bow

Government , Big Data and Child Protection.

20 Thursday Sep 2018

Posted by Natasha in child abuse, Researching Reform, social work

≈ 8 Comments

The news this week that councils are set to use people’s data to create predictive models to detect child abuse has caused a stir, but councils in London have been piloting predictive analysis models across their child protection services for the last three years. And it’s not just councils – the NHS and the Department for Work and Pensions have been using them for some time.

A September 2017 article in Apolitical, describes how councils in London have been using data analytics to try to identify children at risk of harm since 2015, something The Guardian missed this week when it covered the issue. It also suggests that the predictive model used in one council had an 80% success rate, though it’s not clear from the article exactly how success rates were measured. What’s interesting about this article is that it highlights the financial advantages to councils, of using data in this way. The article tells us:

“Councils are expected to save over $910,000 for early targeted interventions, $160,000 by replacing human-conducted screenings with an automated system, and $193,000 for improving access to multi-agency data.”

The article says that the company responsible for creating this predictive model is called Xantura, and their pilot inside the child protection sector has been running since 2015. The cost of the software is an eye watering $1.25 million, and was launched in January 2015.

According to the article, councils using Xantura’s software have been slow to trust the model, which is not completely effective, or accurate, though social work teams may be more concerned about the threat the software poses to jobs inside the sector. The fact that councils will have to pay for the software out of their own budgets, has made uptake on the model slow, too.

Xantura is adamant that their software will save councils money in the long run, and some local authorities are getting on board as a result. Our favourite quote from the article comes from Steve Liddicott, Interim Assistant Director of Children and Young People’s Services at the London Borough of Hackney, who says:

“You actually don’t have to prevent that many children from going into care to make quite a significant saving.”

According to Apolitical, Xantura’s “Early Help Profiling System” (EHPS) uses stats from multiple agencies, including information about school attendance and attainment, families’ housing situations, as well as economic indicators. The model then takes those stats and turns them into ‘risk profiles’ for each family.

But here’s the thing. We know that doesn’t work. Remember the Troubled Families Programme? The one where a whistleblower blew the lid on the project, exposing it’s fraudulent activity, which included using stale data to assess families, and massaging the figures to engineer outcomes so that the team involved could cover up the programme’s failure and make it look like a success? They used big data, too.

The software the team used was Clear Core, and it was developed by a company called Infoshare. And that was as long ago as 2013.

While we are not against the use of technology when it is accurate and effective, the government’s drive to use predictive analytics inside the child protection sector, knowing these models do not deliver robust results, makes the software’s predictions highly dangerous, and the government vulnerable to costly litigation.

Is the answer better technology, or can big data never capture the human condition fully enough to make accurate predictions? We don’t know, but for those of you interested in this area, we’ve added some more information below:

Children At Risk: How different are children on Child Abuse Registers?

This is a piece of research from 1991, produced by Mark Campbell. It looks at whether a checklist with 118 items on it was able to identify children at risk of abuse and neglect. The checklist was applied to 25 different families, who were attending local authority centres at the time. Of those families, nine had children on the local child abuse register. The checklist scores of the families on the register were compared with those that were not, in the control group.

The research discovered something fascinating. There was little difference in the factors studied between the two groups. Mark concluded that this could have been down to one of two reasons:

Either there was little real difference between the characteristics of abusing and non-abusing families, or;
The process of registration was controlled by a series of events which were not solely related to the characteristics of the families in the control group.

This research deserves to be included in the discussion, as it represents the beginnings of data collection for predictive purposes in this area.

We have written before, about the risks involved in using big data and technology as it stands today. In April 2015, we shared our concerns over New Zealand’s plans to use data to try to create predictive models for child abuse. The lack of sophistication in these processes at the moment means that families could be exposed to predictive models that stereotype individuals and create unhelpful biases which could lead to large scale errors. We also mentioned another article, which was published by WIRED in January, 2018, called “A Child Abuse Prediction Model Fails Poor Families”, and is noteworthy for the way in which it talks about how this kind of software can automate inequality.

As always, these fights are never fair, or clean. In an ideal world, debate around the rights and wrongs of predictive machinery inside the child protection sector would be done only by those who are truly independent, but it’s easy to spot the conflicts of interest if you look hard enough. We’ll let you decide about this lot.

THREE QUARTERS Of Children In Care Ping Ponged Around The System

19 Wednesday Sep 2018

Posted by Natasha in child welfare, Researching Reform, social work

≈ 9 Comments

Three quarters of children inside the care system experience being moved from placements and schools, as well as changes in social worker. These are the latest findings from the Children’s Commissioner’s Stability Index, an annual report which looks at the extent to which children are moved around the care system.

The report includes the following statistics:

There are over 70,000 children currently in care
Only 1 in 4 children in care experienced no placement move, no school move and no social worker change within a year.
Only 1 in 10 children experienced none of these changes over two years.
Nearly 2,400 children (6% of children in care attending school) experienced a placement move, a school move and a change in social worker all in 2016/17.
Over 350 children (1% of those in care attending school) experienced multiple placement moves, a mid-year school move and multiple social worker changes all within the same year.
Over 3,000 children (6% of those in care in both 2015/16 and 2016/17) experienced four or more placement moves over two years.
1,300 children (3% of those in care in both 2015/16 and 2016/17) experienced multiple placement moves in both years.
Nearly 4,400 children (6% of all children in care) experienced multiple social worker changes two years in a row.
Over the longer term, most children in care experience a placement move. Over a period of three years, nearly 2,500 children experienced five or more changes.
Over a period of four years, 2,700 children experienced five or more changes.

While the report tells us that rates of instability have not increased, and that there may be good reasons for placement changes, the number of children involved is staggering, as is the idea that we should accept instability when it comes to children who are in need. Children inside the care system need stability as much as, if not more, than children living in functional households.

The report also highlights another important area, which is data collection. In her executive summary, the Children’s Commissioner explains that the findings are limited because the quality of national data is inadequate. This is something we have written about often, and remains one of Researching Reform’s bug bears.

If you have a chance to look at the report, do tell us what you think.

Nearly Two Thirds Of Children’s Social Workers Think Their Practice Is Not Always Based On Credible Evidence.

18 Tuesday Sep 2018

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform, social work

≈ 5 Comments

A Twitter poll carried out by the What Works Centre, has revealed that 64% of social workers do not believe their practice is always based on credible data or evidence. The survey also confirmed that over a third of social workers who took the survey believe that none of their practice is based on sound information. The poll was posted on August 27th, and was taken by 518 social workers.

The Twitter poll, which allowed social workers to respond anonymously, asked the following question:

As a Children’s Social Worker, are the processes and practices being used in your local area based on credible and robust data, evidence or research?

A selection of answers were offered inside the poll by the WWC:

Yes, all are.
Yes, but only some.
No, none are.
Not sure.

Only 9% of those that took the poll selected the first option, with 33% selecting ‘yes, but only some’. 31% answered, ‘no, none are’, with the remaining 27% of pollers saying they were not sure. The combined total of answers 2 and 3, indicates that the majority of social workers who took the poll (64%) do not believe their practice is always based on sound information.

The What Works Centre is part of Nesta, which has been chosen to help set up Social Work England, the body replacing the HCPC. The WWC is currently looking at innovative ways to improve the social work sector. The WWC’s founding members include Isabelle Trowler, Chief Social Worker for England (Children & Families), who is at the Department for Education.

The survey’s results suggest that social workers around the country are acutely aware of the problems inside the child protection sector, but may be too afraid to speak out in case their positions are compromised at work. The anonymous nature of surveys like Twitter polls may be allowing concerned practitioners to voice their observations without being targeted.

You can follow the WWC on Twitter at @whatworksCSC.

Insights: The Good Social Worker

18 Tuesday Sep 2018

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform, social work

≈ 8 Comments

A directory launched on Sunday, housing the names of social workers who have been recommended by service users has received over 300 messages, which offer interesting insights into service users’ experiences, and the child protection sector.

The Good Social Worker was created by Michele Simmons and Natasha Phillips, who wanted to launch a site for parents and children which could offer them reassurance about their social worker, and give passionate social care professionals the chance to highlight their commitment to the families and children they assist.

While the directory has been met with cynicism by a few service users, most families who contacted the founders of the directory have welcomed the initiative, feeling it has offered them a place to seek out competent social workers.

The initial findings from the directory are thought provoking. Several service users said that they had engaged with good social workers, but within a short period of time those social workers had then left the sector. Some families implied that this was because the social workers felt pressure to conform to unethical practices or processes that were not in the best interests of the families they were helping. The departure of these social workers significantly affected families, who felt that they had lost a vital advocate who made them feel safe and understood.

Other families had experienced multiple social workers during the lives of their cases, a feature of the current system which many parents and children find deeply unsettling, but there were also positive stories of social workers going above and beyond their current duties.

One service user told us:

“The social workers attended a private court hearing for me to get contact with my older kids on a Special Guardianship Order. They didn’t have to come and weren’t involved with my children but they both came to support me and speak up for me to the judge.”

This kind of feedback is significant for the way it highlights the gaps in current social work services, and how families respond when they are properly looked after.

Other interesting information emerging from the directory relates to the concentration of good social workers in specific areas, with Hastings and Sefton in the lead this week. Three social workers in each area have been nominated by families for their help and support.

Can I Choose My Social Worker?

17 Monday Sep 2018

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform, social work

≈ 26 Comments

Welcome to another week.

Following the launch of The Good Social Worker, a directory featuring the names of social work professionals recommended by families and children, we thought it would be useful to take a look at whether or not service users can actually ask for a specific social worker.

Local authorities have to allocate a social worker to every child protection case they handle, and as such the initial selection is usually always made by them. However, you have the right to ask for a specific social worker, if she or he is working at the council and assists on similar kinds of cases to yours.

While families and children don’t have a right to demand that they are given a specific or different social worker, there are several grounds you can raise, which the council must consider before turning down your request:

The communication between you and your current social worker has broken down
Your social worker is behaving unprofessionally
Your child does not feel he or she can be open with the social worker
There is a social worker at the council that has been recommended to you and you would like to work with him or her
You have made a complaint about your current social worker

In all of these situations, if you are actively engaged with a current social worker, setting out your intention in writing (so that the request is recorded), is a good idea. The letter should be written to the social worker’s manager. In the letter or email, you can set out your reasons for wanting a change (which we would suggest is done diplomatically and as civilly as possible to ensure the most positive response), who you would like to work with, and why you feel this would be better for you and your child.

Where communication has broken down, you should explain why the lack of engagement is problematic. It sounds like an obvious point, but explaining that the breakdown is due to a lack of trust or personal connection and that it is preventing you from working with the council, is an important way of signalling that you are willing to engage with the services on offer, but not with someone who makes you feel uncomfortable.

If your social worker is behaving unprofessionally, gathering evidence of poor conduct is advisable, so that you can show a lack of response to emails, or missed appointments, for example. More serious issues like falsifying records or writing negative assessments without proof of any alleged neglect or abuse should wherever possible, be backed up with evidence and attached to your letter or email. And always keep a record of everything you write, and share.

The most important people here are the kids, so if your child is not connecting with the social worker, or with their own social worker, that should also be mentioned in your letter. Depending on the age of the child involved in the proceedings, we would also recommend finding a child advocate whom you feel confident will amplify your child’s concerns, if you can. Attaching a letter or report from a child advocate where the advocate agrees a change of social worker is needed, will also help to show the social work manager that your request is in your child’s best interests.

If you know that you’re going to engage with your council over a child protection matter, getting your request in right at the start could help to increase the chances of the request being successful. As always, a polite ask combined with a reason (i.e. X social worker has been recommended by Y and I would love to work with him or her), is a good approach.

Making a complaint about your social worker signals clearly that something isn’t right. While we don’t recommend making a complaint for the sake of it, as this can lead to more tensions and the chance of families being penalised in the process, where a social worker is clearly part of the problem and not the solution, a complaint is a compelling way to make the point that a new social worker is needed. It is at that point, (i.e. while the complaint is being made), that you could ask for your preferred social worker.

If your request is not granted, do ask for a written explanation on why your request has been turned down.

The bottom line is, families can’t insist on a social worker and requests don’t have to be granted, but they must be considered, and backing them up with logical, clear and child welfare focused reasons will give your request weight and maximise your chances of success. It also makes the family court aware of issues that can get swept under the carpet.

You have the right to ask, so don’t be shy.

We would like to say a very big thank you to the brilliant Jane Doe, who inspired us to write this post.