Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Special guardianship: Whole family assessment and support
Tom Layzell and Ioana Furcovici SGO Support Team at Essex County Council
AgendaTime Session10.00 Welcome, introductions and aims for the day10.15 Pre-order session 11.15 Break11.30 Case Study + group discussion (child B)12.15 Assessment of SGO Support needs post-order13.00 Lunch13.30 Case Study (child B) – continuation13.30 Break14.00 Different approaches to intervention post-SGO 14.30 Case Study & video14.45 Break15.30 Questions & big group discussions15.45 Action planning and evaluations
2
3
Workshop objectives
› Learn from recent research and practice development
› Share innovative practice in relation to SGO support
› Consider approaches to supporting contact and therapeutic approaches in SGO placements
› Share learning on collaboration with special guardians to build effective services and develop peer to peer support for SGO families
4
Research: Wade et al (2014)
› Significant LA variation - those with high rates of SGOs also high rates of adoption
› Children subject to a SGO average age of 3.2 yrs old when admitted to care - older than children adopted
› Reasons for admission similar to those adopted› Disruption rates low - factors increasing risk were age
of child, number of moves, lack of strong pre-existing relationship
› Most children thriving and doing well
5
Research: Wade et al (2014)› But the ‘costs’ to the carers were often high› Managing relationships with child’s parents could be very wearing› Many had financial worries with less opportunities to earn an income 31% did
not get a break and 24% felt tired most of the time› Good relationship with SW valued – well-supported SGs felt more in control
and less stressed› 1/3 of SGs given no choice about when LA support ended. Some did not want
support but others did› 50% of SGs said they were not fully prepared; some felt under pressure to
apply; many unclear what they were getting in to› One in 7 not caring for children when the order made› Most SGs felt assessment strong but preparation less good› 39% received some help with legal fees and 56% receive a one-off payment
for legal advice› 11% of cases Supervision Order made - LAs rates vary significantly: some
because of LA concerns, some to ensure LA support
6
1. Pre-SGO session
› Social workers’ assessments of children’s needs and special guardians’ parental capacity including timescales
7
Family Justice Reform (FJR) research for DfE (RiP 2015-16)› Three studies 2015-16: 1. Impacts of FJR in six LAs; 2. case file analysis re. use of
SGOs in five LAs; 3. exploration of variations in practice across 21 authorities› Selecting findings re. SGOs: timescales › 26 week timescale: While it has created pressure, professionals were positive
about the benefits – more timely decision-making and avoiding drift. No appetite for further major change, need time to embed
› Issues with 26 weeks: › Unwillingness of some courts to allow ‘purposeful delay’› Limited time for parents to demonstrate whether positive changes could be
sustained› This leading to untested permanence decisions and in some cases proceedings
having to be re-issued within a relatively short timeframe › Some courts setting timescales well below 26 weeks› Courts ordering assessments of family members to be completed in very short
timescales
8
Selecting findings re. SGOs: Assessing family members› Issues with viability assessment processes:
− Assessments (parenting/connected persons) not started soon enough
− Family members not identified at early stage and late emerging family members
− Number of connected persons being assessed creates capacity issues to complete in timeframe
− Potential carers widely scattered. Challenges navigating international laws and languages
› Positive use of family group conferences (FGC):− Importance of fidelity to a family led process and the FGC service
being well linked in with other activity
9
Selecting findings re. SGOs: Changing use of the order› Perception of increased use of SGOs and decrease in proportion
of Placement Orders (PO) granted. Main reason cited was Re B-S and the sense that 'anything but adoption will do’ (Manager)
› Concerns about the rigour of assessment process. Perception amongst some that threshold for approving family members was lower since Re B-S and that SGO was an inappropriate disposal for some children:− Using SGOs to place children with relatives while parents ‘sort themselves
out: ‘a stop gap to give parents a chance to catch up' (SW)− Perception that SGOs were being used for younger children than
previously − Some LAs seeing increase in SGOs with Supervision Order (SO)− LAs seeing cases of children on SGOs returning to care proceedings
10
Case file analysis: SGO + SO
› Around half of these 50 SGOs were made with a Supervision Order. Main reason - LA oversight/monitoring and support of placement
› Main concerns highlighted in assessment when there was a SO: relationship with birth parents; SG’s parenting capacity
› Wide variation in use SOs:LA1-70% LA2-10% LA3-30% LA4-70% LA5-50%
11
Case file analysis: SG relationship with child› Just over half the children were living with SGs during
proceedings and prior to SGO being made› Of the rest, most of the children had some kind of
relationship with them› In five cases children had no established relationship with
SG before they came forward as carers. Introductions started following positive assessment of carers
› Two cases: SG and child had no significant contact until the SGO made
12
Case file analysis re. SGOs: Care plans› In one in five of these cases the initial care plan was for
adoption› Reasons for change from plan for adoption to SGO:
− Prospective SGs challenged negative viability assessment in court. Court ordered ISW assessments, which generally resulted in a positive assessment. LA accepted ISW assessment and changed plan to SGO
− Family member comes forward as carer late in proceedings and are positively assessed
› Three cases involved some form of contestation between court and LA during proceedings
13
Case file analysis re. SGOs: Assessments› Assessments covered a range of factors, often in depth› In around 25% of these 50 cases a re-assessment was ordered by
court after an initial negative SG assessment› Main concerns expressed in negative assessments:
− Minimising the risks presented by the birth parents (often associated with violence). Potential carer unable to accept boundaries that would be needed to protect child
− Unable to respond to level of need when child has complex emotional/behavioural needs - often caring for other children
− Previous involvement of Children’s Services for their own children› After a positive re-assessment these LAs generally accepted
ISW recommendations, often with reservations. Some cases where the LA and court were in dispute about assessments
14
Case file analysis re. SGOs: Support plans› Varied in content and depth. Information about child’s
needs were noted in the assessment and, in less depth, in the support plan. BUT support plans often not linked to the identified needs of child or risks identified in assessment
› Main type of support offered is financial› These five LAs provided support for contact with birth
parents in around a third of these cases (for 6-12 months)› Very few plans offered the kind of training available to
foster carers or adopters
15
Views of assessing social workers and prospective special guardians in Essex› Frontline social workers: › ‘They feel that they are not trained or experienced in assessing and
planning for Permanency’› Short timescales in the context of complexity of caseload and urgent
intervention needed› Special guardians:
Assessment felt ‘rushed’ and they did not fully understand the process and future responsibilities including legal and financial implications
‘We did not feel prepared and felt let down’
16
The views of special guardians (Ashley (Ed), 2012)
› I have been horrified at the lack of support and help› A lot of intrusion for 12 months during the special
guardianship application but no support/advice or help at any time
› Social services are always at the end of phone with advice if needed
› Social services closed the case after about 6 months. In that time my niece’s support worker went on maternity leave and we had no follow up visits at all
› I started up my own grandparents group
17
The views of special guardians (Ashley (Ed), 2012)
› Adapting to changes in family relationships.For grandparents: sacrificing their relationship with their own son or daughter, loss of enjoyment of being a grandparent
› Loss of friends due to change in circumstances› Tiredness, ill health and need for respite› Loss of pension, lower income levels and financial
worries› Accessing services for the children
19
Case Study - B
› Please read the pre-order assessment and SGO Support Plan
› Table top discussions› Group discussions
20
Lunch: Have a look at resources on display table
21
Create an online account
› You can access all of our learning resources by creating an online account at:
› www.rip.org.uk/login/create-account/
With an account you can:› Download resources › Book places at webinars
and workshops › Subscribe to RPU/bulletins
22
Developing different types of SGO assessment: Assessing SGO support needs
23
Assessing SGO support needsRegulation 12 of the SGO Regs (2005) requires that assessment of needs considers (as far as relevant to the particular assessment): › Developmental needs of the child› Parenting capacity of special guardian/prospective special guardian › Family and environmental factors which have shaped the life of the child › What the life of the child might be like with the special guardian› Any previous assessment in respect of the child/special guardian/prospective
special guardian › The needs of the special guardian/prospective guardian/family› Where it appears to the LA that there is a pre-existing relationship between the
special guardian/prospective special guardian and the parents of the child, the likely impact of the special guardianship order on relationships between that person/child/parent
24
The Frequency of making use of the… Regulation 19 URGENT CASES
It is important that the assessment process and follow up does not unnecessarily delay provision where a person has an urgent need for a service. Regulation 19 therefore provides that where any requirement under the Regulations in relation to an assessment, preparing a plan or giving notice would delay provision in a case of urgency, that requirement does not apply. The local authority will need to review provision as soon as possible after support has been provided, in accordance with the procedures set out above.
25
Essex approach
› Initial assessments (one meeting) to include use of SDQ, attachment difficulties screening - followed by a support plan
› Engage in the support plan or› The support plan might include more
comprehensive assessments – eg assessments of therapeutic needs, assessment of contact needs
27
Is the contact meaningful – who benefits?
A review of research for assessing contact in the context of parental DV (Sturges and Glaser 2000) focused on the impact on children. The report states that it would be emotionally harmful for a child if there was: Continuation of unresolved situations, for example, where the child has a memory or belief about a negative aspect of the contact parent, for example, abuse, and where this is just left as if unimportant.
The report goes on to point out that where abuse or neglect has been established, any denial or ‘…refusal to look at apologising and other means of helping the child deal with the situation can be particularly destructive to the child both in terms of failing to validate their experience and failing to validate the child as a valid individual as a consequence and in terms of failing to recognise and help the child in his or her need to come to terms with what has happened’.
Strengths/risks associated with contactFactors in the child associated with positive contact:› Child placed in infancy› No pre-placement relationship
with birth relative› Positive/neutral pre-placement
relationship› Absence of major
behavioural/mental health problems
› Secure attachment and placement with current carers
› Healthy psycho-social development
› Child freely wants contact, is not afraid
› Child has positive memories
Factors in the child associated with difficult or disruptive contact:› Older child› Older child with troubled/traumatic
relationship with birth relative› Rejected child, lived with several birth
relatives› Major behavioural/mental health problems› Insecure attachment/placement with current
carers› Child freely does not want contact, is afraid› Child is fearful on return to placement/› trust in carers undermined› Child has negative memories› Child is re-traumatised/overwhelmed by
contact› Child witnessed violence/imitates violence
28
29
Strengths/risks associated with contactFactors in the carers associated with positive contact:› Not afraid or at risk from birth
relatives› Recognise benefits of contact› Involved in contact planning› Trained and prepared to support
contact› Positive attitude to birth family,
acknowledge reasons for placement› Resolved states of mind in relation to
own loss/abuse› Constructive, collaborative approach› Sensitivity, empathy, reflective
capacity
Factors in the carers associated with difficult or disruptive contact:› Afraid/at risk from birth relatives› Does not want or is anxious about
contact› Excluded from planning and from
contact› Unsupported, unprepared,
untrained› Critical/unaccepting of birth family› Unresolved states of mind
regarding own loss/attachment/abuse
› Unwilling to work collaboratively› Lack of sensitivity, empathy,
reflective capacity
30
Factors in the adult birth relative associated with positive contact:› Has never been child’s primary carer› Accepts and supports placement,
affirms new carers› Constructive and collaborative
approach› Relinquishes parenting role› Relates to child in positive, non-
abusive way› Relatively free of significant personal
difficulties (for example substance misuse)
› Reliable, punctual› Accepts harm caused to child› Expresses regret/remorse› Does not use contact to
undermine/threaten or cause conflict with carers
Factors in the adult birth relative associated with difficult or detrimental contact:› Does not accept or undermines the placement› Insists on maintaining role as main carer,
discourages child from loving new family› Seriously maltreated or traumatised child in past
(including exposure to domestic violence)› Neglectful/abusive/rejecting during visits› Unreliable, persistently late› Denies causing harm/shows no remorse or regret› Exposes child to values at odds with placement
(for example drug use)› Significant personal difficulties (for example
substance misuse)› Uses contact to undermine/threaten/cause
conflict with carers› Risk to carers/threats of abduction› Activity-based, chance to build up good
memories› Carers from similar backgrounds, with similar
values› Placements are geographically close
31
Assessment of contact needs in Essex› Reading files – understanding past trauma,
making hypothesises about attachment difficulties
› Meeting children - listen to their views and wishes, direct work, sand trays, artwork, play, ‘the three houses’ etc
› Understanding what children are expressing trough their behaviours
› Talking to other professionals› Assessing the parents’ ‘reflective functioning’› Observing contact when possible› Interviewing the special guardians
32
Assessments of Therapeutic needs
› What is a therapeutic need?› Looking beyond the factual information that is given to us
by the children and/or carers› Using reflection› Emotional difficulties manifested in challenging behaviours› Attachment difficulties› Known history of unresolved trauma and abuse/neglect› How is it different from the psychologist assessment
33
Assessment of therapeutic needs in Essex› Marschak Interaction Method (MIM)› Attachment style interview› Sand trays› Look and assessing child’s history –
compiling chronologies› Observation› Attachment
36
Different approaches to intervention post-SGO
37
Contact considerations› Think outside the box!› Create a gateway for better relationships› Remain neutral and child centred› Contact needs to be a positive experience for all although child/children’s
needs are paramount› Mediation› Enhance role-modelling opportunities for parents and guardians to affect
proactive changes within family dynamics› Depending on risk contact arrangements do not have to be in a location or a
room which has no or little stimulation› Be inventive – create a place of safety to allow exploration and curiosity› Help repair relationships› Mediate steps from supervised to unsupervised contact arrangements› Gateway for changes to meet the child/children’s needs› Semi-supervised contact
38
Contact – intervention in Essex
› Once the assessment is completed we make our recommendations on contact to the special guardians and we can facilitate signing an agreement between the special guardians and the parents
› If dynamics are too complex and a more formal agreement needs to be in place, we support parties to access a formal mediation or ultimately recommend that they go back to court
39
Contact ideas and progression routesIndirect› Letters & photos› Electronic photo shoot and
scrapbook exchanges› Text› Emails› Arranged phone calls› Supervised and arranged
Facebook contact› Videos› Skype› Facetime
Direct› Guardians visiting parents
(potentially facilitated by local authority before withdrawing support)
› Family centres› Stay and Play - indoor children’s
play centre› Go Banana’s/Go Ape › National Association of Child
Contact Centres (NACCC)› Community-based: Costa Coffee,
Sunday Carvery etc› Attend swimming gala/football
match/presentation etc
40
Making contact safe and beneficial for children› Contact needs to have meaning and purpose – based on
repaired relationships› Birth parents need support in understanding they will continue
to have significance for their child and the potential for them to help their child’s recovery
› The parents may be able to ‘give’ their child something no adult ever gave them by:− Accepting responsibility for the child being removed from their care and
acknowledging this with the child− Apologise for the hurts the child has suffered− Give the child permission to settle with their special guardian and accept
their role in supporting the child during contact sessions
41
Supporting the children
› Preparing the children for contact begins with life story work which deals with the reality of the child’s experiences. Life story work will explore the child’s experience, feelings and thoughts about contact
› Children will be enabled to think about questions they may have about their past and social workers will put these questions on behalf of the child
› The child’s sense of loss and any positive feelings or wishes they have for their birth parents/relatives will need acknowledgement
› Prior to contact sessions, children will be supported in thinking about what will help them feel safe, they should also be prepared for the possibility of unexpected feelings and reactions
42
Working with the special guardians
› They need opportunities to think through the child’s needs and issues in relation to contact and their role in supporting the child, before, during and following contact
› Opportunities to express their anxieties or concerns and reflect on the needs and potential benefits for the child of ‘openness’. An open attitude can help the child feel safe about expressing thoughts and feelings about their past and present relationship with birth parents
44
Therapeutic work in Essex
› Based on attachment/trauma work, undertaken by two of the social workers in the team trained in DDP, Theraplay, therapeutic Life Story work with experience in post-adoption and CAMHS, NVR
› Work with the whole family, including the parents where appropriate
› Some cases are commissioned to independent therapy providers
45
What is Life Story work?
Life story work aims to enable children and young people to explore their thoughts, feelings, hopes, fears and experiences in relation to their past, present and future lives to make sense of their identity (Ryan and Walker 2011:3)
46
Why is it important to combine identity and Life Story work together? ie child development & attachment› The work aims ‘to establish a holistic understanding of children
and their need for identity’ (Richard Rose)› Life story work is an integrative process that aims to ‘make
meaning’ of a person’s life by ‘higher & lower (Siegal 2003) brain processes’
› Life story work can re-frame early life trauma by acknowledging unspoken, hidden and avoided pain – this often comes out in behaviour difficulties
› The idea is to create ‘therapeutic re-parenting… to furtherattach child and parent… to develop the brain by wiring new patterns which were not formed in earlier life due to neglectful parenting (Cairns 2011:74)
47
Working with young people using expressive arts› Painting/drawing – timeline, 3D images, colours› Collage› Clay – baby – what a child needs, what happens if needs are unmet…› Film – news reporter, family filming› Photography – past, present & future images› iTunes playlists – love, angry, sad, rage› Lyrics - poems› 3D life story work› Multi media installations› Music
48
Practice ideas Essex SGO Support Team have found useful› Continued team learning and
development› Dan Hughes PLACE Model› Supervision› Team meetings› Case discussions› Day-to-day peer support› A team social event - once every three
months› Team away day
49
Case discussion - child C
Video – NVR feedback
Reflection and action planning
› Use the template to pull out key learning points to take back to your team
› 15 minutes
Evaluation forms› Please complete your evaluation form
– on both sides!
5050
52
Webinar recordings and further reading› Infant brain development› Contact› Attachment› https://www.rip.org.uk/resources/webinar-recordings/ › Crafter S, Munro ER, Meetoo V and Hollingworth K (forthcoming) Adoption reform:
Messages from local authorities on changes in processes and timescales. Final report› Munro ER and Gilligan R (2013) The ‘dance’ of kinship care in England and Ireland:
Navigating a course between regulation and relationships. Psychosocial Intervention 22(3) 3 185-192
› Munro ER, Meetoo V and Hollingworth K (2013) Adoption reform: Messages from local authorities on changes in processes and timescales. Findings from wave 2. London: Childhood Wellbeing Research Centre
› Wade et al (2014) Investigating Special Guardianship: experiences, outcomes and challenges. London: Department for Education
Contact details
53
www.rip.org.uk
@researchIP
