Child Mother Relationship

Answer

Juvenile Justice and Child Protection

            In the current case study, two children aged 5 years and 2 years are involved in a situation which warranted the intervention of the Department of Communities and Justice. So far, the issues reported have not been considered to meet the threshold of risk of significant harm. However, further assessment is needed to properly make a decision on the matter. The outcome of this assessment proves that indeed there is a risk of significant harm to the children, which is why an intervention is required to prevent further harm.

Reports made to the Department of Family and Community Services

            The team leader’s decision stated that the reported issues do not meet the threshold of risk of significant harm. The first report was focused on the fact that the children had been left unsupervised at home, another argued that there was a bad smell from their backyard. The other reports mentioned that there were violent outbursts and children screams on a regular basis. Finally, Banjo’s disability care worker also raised concern on his overall health which seemed to be deteriorating. All of these are not sufficient enough according to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.

            There are specific definitions of “a child in need of protection” in New South Wales, where this family lives. In Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, Section 3, a child is referred to as any individuals aged below 16 years (‘Thomson Reuters Australia Limited,’ 2020). In section 71 (1) of the same act, it is indicated that the Children’s Court reserves the right to make a care order with regards to a child or young person if it is satisfied by facts of the case that the child or young person is in need of care and protection.

            Further, according to Section 71 (2) of Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, the Children’s Court cannot conclude that the child’s basic needs are not likely to be met just because the parent or care giver has a disability or is living in poverty (‘Thomson Reuters Australia Limited,’ 2020). In Section 23, it is argued that the child is at risk of significant harm if there are current concerns regarding their safety, welfare, and wellbeing due to the presence of the any of, but not limited to the following factors; the child’s basic or psychological needs are not being met, or are at risk of not being met a necessary, the parents or caregivers have been unwilling or unable to organize for the child to receive medical care, the child is at risk of being physically or sexually abused, the child is in a household here there have been past incidents of domestic violence, and lastly the parent or caregiver has behaved towards the child in a way that has resulted in suffering or risk for psychological harm (Cunneen, White & Richards, 2015). These provisions relate closely to the current case, and should be used in the assessment that is to be conducted.

Ethical Practice and Decision Making In Child Protection

            In Child Protection and Youth Justice, ethical decision making is important especially since this population is highly vulnerable, the unequal power relationships that exist, and the centrality of specific relationships in the effective practice (Broadley, 2020). All these factors can be easily exploited. Typically, children tend to have less power than adults since what they are never given the opportunity to make their own choices. However, their parents can also feel powerless, especially when they are faced by the statutory powers. Most of the families whose children have had to be scrutinised by the child protection and youth justice tend to have specific factors in common (‘Thomson Reuters Australia Limited,’ 2020). These include poverty, unemployment, mental instability, drug addictions, and many others.

            The Social Work Code of Ethics offers guidance for how human rights should be handled. It also highlights factors such as ethical relationships, and the need for ethical decision making to honour children’s rights (AASW, 2020).  There are certain child welfare practices which cannot be morally and ethically justified. Many children are exposed to more harm when in residential care, when they are separated from their parents and their siblings, when they are exposed to crime at early ages, and also when they are not offered treatment for any trauma they may have experienced.

            Hence, an ethical practice is one where workers relate better to children and their families. Policies need to be formulated in such a way that they will promote respect, justice and care for the children. That is because it is very easy for the children to experience injustice, under the disguise of ‘protection.’ (‘Ombudsman Western Australia,’ 2019) For example, when a child is taken so they can live indefinitely in conditions that are worse and abusive than their family home. Therefore, ethical decision-making requires that social workers reflect critically on the contextual complexities being experienced in the people’s lives before making sound decisions that will not end up causing more harm to the child (Lonne, Harries, Featherstone & Gray, 2016).

            Therefore, when conducting further assessment, specific considerations must be taken. It is important to respect and advocate for the Children’s right to be heard, believed, and to feel safe. Most children will be intimidated by the care and protection process (Sudland, 2020). They will feel like it is oppressive and abusive. That is because they are not included in the process of decision making even though it is their life. This is usually because adults do not think children have the capacity that is required to make the right choices.

            Hence, in the current scenario, both children should be invited in a warm environment where they will be asked questions on how they feel. Steps should be taken to ensure that they feel safe and comfortable, and not as if they are in an interrogation. These children should not be rushed or forced to respond to any of the questions. They should be asked what happens at home, if they are happy, and basically everything they see transpiring between their parents.

            Another important consideration is confidentiality. When a child opens up to an adult, they simply expect that such information will remain confidential. Therefore, to avoid interfering with the trust that will have already been established, the child should be informed of the limits that exist (Song, 2016). The child should be encouraged to speak out freely, knowing that only the essential information will be shared to help protect them and improve the quality of their lives (AASW, 2020). In the current case of Greta and Banjo, the older child will be engaged in a conversation. It will be explained that any piece of information that is crucial to their safety will be shared with the courts for a decision. Also, they should understand that the information shared will also be used to help improve the lives of their parents as well, so they can become better in their role in future.

            Next, role clarification and limitations is also important. Vulnerable children and young person’s tend to be an easy target for extreme closeness and attachments (Lonne, Harries, Featherstone & Gray, 2016). Hence, it is important to inform them prior, of the role limits of the social worker. Set boundaries, maintain records, and report behaviours as transparently as possible (Sudland, 2020). For children, such as Greta, she can easily get attached to the social worker who she may feel gives her enough attention as compared to her parents. In case of placement in foster care, such a child may suffer since she may prefer to live with the social worker who has been acting as a parent to her, rather than stranger who she knows nothing about. Therefore, it is ethical to ensure that this child understands that social work is just a profession like any other. She cannot be taken to live with the social worker who she has grown fond of, but will have to go to a new family who will also love, protect, and care for her.

            There is an obligation to report any child abuse and neglect issue. If no reports are made, then the social worker is held legally responsible for not reporting and warning of any imminent danger to the life of the child (Lonne, Harries, Featherstone & Gray, 2016). Hence, even though there are privacy and confidentiality obligations, limitations to these should be considered. When conducting further assessment which involves talking to the children and even assessing their domestic environment, any cause for alarm should be reported (Sudland, 2020). It does not mean that such reports will lead to the children being taken away. However, it could save the children’s life since the parents will get the help they need to ensure better care is offered. Therefore, anything that Greta says should not be ignored or dismissed. Rather, it should be taken seriously and measures must be taken to help improve their situation.

            It is important that the social worker gets training to ensure counselling competence is gained. The social worker is a human being like any other and is prone to getting affected psychologically and emotionally when working on cases. However, through counselling, the right attitudes and values will be maintained. Each scenario should be used as a learning point, where the social worker will reflect on his or her behaviour before considering what should be improved on in future cases. In a case as that of Greta and Banjo, it is easy to experience severe emotional trauma since the children are quite young, and the parents are struggling. However, it is imperative that such emotions do not cloud the eventual judgement and reporting of the situation (Sudland, 2020). This is especially true when maybe the social worker experienced a similar situation when growing up. The focus should be on the current children and not on person feelings and emotions.

The DECIDE Model

            To ensure that the assessment is handled as required, the DECIDE model will be used. It is important since it takes into consideration the vulnerability of the children, the presence of unequal powers, and even the importance of central relationships (Lonne, Harries, Featherstone & Gray, 2016).

Definition of the Problem

            In the current case, it is evident that the parents are struggling financially to stay afloat. This has led to Sophie having to work extra hours while Dave stays at home. Unfortunately, Dave has fallen into depression and is abusing alcohol and drugs. This has led to concerns over child neglect since the house is never cleaned as required and children are not properly fed. The fact that Banjo is a special needs child worsens the situation since he also appears neglected. His weight is dropping and a series of medical appointments have been missed. Most evenings, when Sophie comes home and finds everything is a mess, they get into a heated argument with Dave which is why the children start scream considering what they witness.

Ethical Review

            Given the current analysis, it is clear that power and responsibility should be held by Sophie. She is the only one in the family who appears to be fit to make decisions (Lonne, Harries, Featherstone & Gray, 2016). It is clear that she is emotionally drained by her husband’s behaviour. However, she appears to be trying her best to fix their financial problem. Therefore, unless she states that she is unable to properly care for her children, the Court should not force her to give them up. She should be given the assistance she needs to provide proper care for the children, as well as fix her relationship to avoid exposing the children to their arguments.

Consider Options

            The next step is considering the legal, procedural and practical constraints. Given the current situation, it is clear that Dave is not in the right state to care effectively for the children, especially Banjo who requires special attention (Lonne, Harries, Featherstone & Gray, 2016). Hence, the first option is for Sophie to take up the role of care. But she needs to keep working, otherwise the family will lose the home when it is unable to pay mortgage. Since Sophie takes turns to care for Banjo with her aunt, it is only reasonable that she be the primary care giver for the children in the absence of Sophie. It is practical since her aunt lives close by, and will have no problem coming to the house. However, this will be a challenge if the aunt also has to work, or has other commitments. In this case, it will only make sense for the children to be put in foster care until Dave recovers from his addiction. This last option may be quite a challenge especially if the children will be unwilling to leave their mother who clearly loves them.

Investigate Outcomes

            The first option of having Sophie take up the role of caring for the children directly will be against her duty to provide for the children. She needs to work, in order to get finances for their basic needs. It will be an injustice to the children since their life will become worse with all the financial struggles that will be suffered. The option of placing the children in foster care will mean they get separated (Lonne, Harries, Featherstone & Gray, 2016). These are young children who are still attached to their parents despite the challenges being experienced.  The option of placing the kids with Sophie’s aunt does not disrespect or cause injustice to the children.

Decide on Action

            Having the aunt care for the children while Sophie goes to work is the option that will least harm the children. That is because she will be coming over during the day, while the children get to spend time with their mother at night. The children will get to stay safe at home under the care of a family member whom they know as their grandmother. In return, Sophie will be able to work and come back to a clean home and well cared for children. Dave will get the chance of going to rehab and seeking employment after. Over time, it is expected that the family will recover from the current challenges and Dave will go back to being the bread winner while Sophie stays at home with the children.

Evaluate Results

            To consider if this approach was successful, the first consideration will be on Banjo’s health and the feedback from his healthcare provider. If he has gained weight and is back on track developmentally, then the process will be considered a success. Also, the level of happiness of the children will be considered. Have the reports of concern reduced? The state of the domestic environment will also be considered. A clean and healthy environment is the main goal.

Conclusion

            Engaging in an ethical practice when handling such child protection matters is very important. It ensures that the child is not exposed to more harm, but rather that the best solution is attained. The option of taking away children from their parents and home is not always the best solution. It should be used as the final option, when nothing else can be done to help these children.