CYSCP

Every conversation starts with the child.

As a result of some recent audit work, I thought it would be useful start a conversation about how well we involve fathers in our work and to develop a Principal Social Worker blog which focuses on why and how we ensure that we have a high level of meaningful engagement with men, fathers, putative fathers, partners and carers in our work with children. Some information shared with me recently regarding a case suggested that in one case the workers understood that a strategy meeting was necessary to allow the Local Authority to share information with a child’s father as the father did not live in the same household with the child. In another case the father had not been contacted following a referral to Children's Social Care regarding his child as the details of the concerns did not include concerns about his care of the child. Evidence from audits would suggest that whilst there is some extremely strong work with fathers there are clearly areas where this could be developed. I think it's a really useful debate to have and I am, as always, interested in your views.

The Children Act 1989 clearly states:

A father usually has parental responsibility if he's either:

• married to the child's mother
• listed on the birth certificate (after a certain date, depending on which part of the UK the child was born in)

If the parents of a child are married when the child is born, or if they've jointly adopted a child, both have parental responsibility.

They both keep parental responsibility if they later divorce.

An unmarried father can get parental responsibility for his child in 1 of 3 ways:

• jointly registering the birth of the child with the mother (from 1 December 2003)
• getting a parental responsibility agreement with the mother
• getting a parental responsibility order from a court

Jon Symonds (Social Work lecturer University of Bristol) considered fatherhood in the context of Social work and found that:

It is now well established that fathers matter to children’s wellbeing. When fathers are positively involved in their children’s lives, their children are more likely to do better at school, have better relationships with their peers, have better mental health and are less likely to be in trouble with the police. When social workers work with fathers to improve their involvement with children, they can help to improve outcomes for children.

It could be argued that the position of fathers in children’s lives has changed significantly in recent years and although the majority of children may live with 2 parents family structures are increasingly varied and complex. The most recent data I can find suggests that between 1971 and 2011 the number of families with dependent children who were parented by a couple fell from 92% to 78% and my own hypothesis would be that this is likely to have fallen further. It continues to be the case that following separation the majority of children remain in the care of the mother and this can have significant implications for children and their relationship with the non-resident parent (usually the father) in 2011 92% of single parents were female.

Research has consistently criticised social work for appearing to focus on female carers/mothers and that father often only feature superficially in children’s case recording, home visits, direct work, and that multi-agency planning meetings often focus on the mothers care of the children and plans identify ways in which she needs to develop to enable ‘her’ to keep the children safe. I have seen this previously (not in York) in contact arrangements when mothers who have been the victim of domestic abuse have been ordered by the court to supervise contact between their children and the abusive parent.

It’s significant, that the most recent research I can find which considers the involvement of fathers was undertaken in 2014 (Osborn 2014). The research reported that fathers were only invited to 55% of child protection conferences although interestingly, resident fathers were more likely to be invited but less likely to attend, and conversely non-resident fathers were less likely to be invited but more likely to attend. I think we need to ask ourselves how routinely do we speak with non-resident fathers prior to the child’s conference and how robustly do we involve non-resident parents in assessment?

In some cases, information about an absent father may not be immediately available and may involve a level of professional curiosity and potentially difficult conversations with families who might challenge an absent or putative father’s right to know about and to be involved in any assessments or interventions regarding their child.

Information about new partners within the household is important and in some cases abuse by a new partner’s has led to significant injury and in some cases the death of the child. There has been some useful research undertaken in Australia in 2015 which provides some recommendations about how we might approach gaining this information:

• being explicit with mothers about the importance of speaking to the father andincluding him in the process, while also ensuring that she would not be put at risk
• speaking separately to the father rather than gathering information solely from the mother
• arranging separate home visits if necessary to explain the relevance of hisinvolvement with the child, communicating a willingness to include home indecisions

As previously discussed there have been a number of serious case reviews in which fathers appear to have been excluded from assessments and where mother’s new partner was not included in the assessment process or interventions, most prominently the case of Peter Connelly.

The Biennial review of Serious Case Review’s undertaken in 2011 found that:

Serious case reviews repeatedly find that although men around a child who died had posed a risk, this had not been identified or acted upon; and that men who could have been a resource often had information which agencies would have found helpful in understanding the child's situation, if only they had been in touch or had been listened to (OFSTED, 2011; Brandon et al., 2011)

Most of you will be familiar with the case of Peter Connelly and the injuries which were inflicted on Peter by his mother’s partner which, ultimately led to his death. Peter’s father was estranged from Peter’s mother and did not have care of him at the time of his death. The Serious Case reviews identifies opportunities when the Local Authority and multi-agency partners failed to engage Peter’s father; When Peter was admitted to hospital with unexplained injuries, father had agreed to take time off work to care for Peter and according to school records this had been the agreed plan. However Peter was discharged to the care of his mother, apparently as a result of her suggesting that father had, prior to attending parenting classes, hit his children, this was never discussed with father or the subject of any further assessment. It was in fact, Peter’s father who expressed concerns and shared information regarding mother’s new partner.

Peter’s father was not informed of the injuries to Peter in June and information was not sought from him as part of the s.47 enquiry or Police investigation. As a father (with Parental Responsibility) he should have been told of the concerns as a priority. Given his frequent contact with the children it is possible that he might have been able to provide relevant information. Even more critically, during the debate between Police and Children and Young People Mental Health Service whether or not Peter should be placed outside the family home, no consideration appears to have been given to the potential for his father to provide care. He was not consulted or informed of proposed arrangements.

Another male who appears to have been absent in this case is mother’s partner who was living in the maternal home with Peter, his siblings and his mother. When Peter’s mother was questioned as part of the assessment she indicated that her ‘new partner’ was ‘very supportive‘ and a strategy discussion in 2006 made reference to him as ‘a friend who helps’ mother, this information was never questioned by the Social Worker.

There appears to have been no attempt in this case by professionals to exercise professional curiosity in relation to mother’s honesty and openness or in regard to her relationship with her new partner who she described to different professionals in a number of different ways; ‘friend, boyfriend, and lodger’. Nor did they seek to make an assessment of the partner, nor ironically did they consider including him in the potential pool of perpetrators following the initial injuries to Peter. It is clear from the Serious Case Review report that professionals understood the partners role as a ‘supportive’ friend of mother, the denial of a relationship between them appears to have stopped subsequent exploration of their relationship, the meaning of his being ‘supportive’ and what this might signify in terms of his involvement with Peter and his siblings.

So… how can we ensure that we are engaging with fathers and male carers?

Research undertaken by the fatherhood institute and the family rights group identifies that:

Some practitioners lack a clear understanding of the law about engaging fathers and other men. There may also be concerns about whether engaging more with some fathers will increase risks to the child, mother and/or themselves, or increase family tensions. Many practitioners also lack confidence and skills to engage effectively with men, and do not have a clear understanding about how important it is to do so. Some may hold negative attitudes’ towards men’

This quote comes from the Engaging with men in social care: a good practice guide(.pdf).

They go on to suggest that as a result, children are likely to be placed at greater risk through:

• failure to identify important males in children’s lives (especially when the man is living in another household)
• inadequate understanding of the roles fathers and other men play in the lives of at-risk children
• poor assessments of the risks posed by some men
• failure to challenge risky men’s behaviour enough – pressuring mothers to manage the risk or get the men out
• failure to strengthen men’s positive contributions to their children’s wellbeing

So, we should seek to identify and involve fathers as early as possible, unless to do so is assessed as unsafe (and even then other ways of working may be feasible). MOSAIC needs to have full information about the child including the name and the full and up-to-date contact details of the birth father, whether he holds Parental Responsibility and information about any other significant father figures. While it is also important to record whether a father has Parental Responsibility, this does not mean that we should only engage with men who have it. Many of the men who pose the greatest risk to children will not have Parental Responsibility and others, who may be a resource, including stepfathers and some unmarried fathers, may not have it either. It is also important to engage effectively with paternal as well as maternal relatives.

If a child becomes looked after, the first choice of placement is with the other parent provided it is consistent with their welfare (s.22C Children Act 1989); so the birth father should always be consulted (and where appropriate assessed) when you are considering where to place child, whether or not he has Parental Responsibility. If a father or father figure does not agree with the outcome of your assessment, his views should be recorded, placed on the child’s file and responded to accordingly

Please let me know what you think. How well do we include fathers, what might we do differently, are there any resources or really good pieces of work you can share with your colleagues?

Dallas, Principal Social Worker, Head of Quality Assurance and Safeguarding.

Additional resources:

• Independent report Haringey serious case reviews: child A
• Engaging with men in social care: a good practice guide(.pdf).