Transcript Slide 1
How what we’ve learnt is impacting on what we’re doing Putting some theory into practice in Armadale, Western Australia: A look at two opportunities to work with service recipients using principles and tools from the Signs of Safety Child Protection Practice Framework. Katrina Etherington, Social Worker Armadale District Some Context... • Senior Practice Development Officer (SPDO) • 3 key areas of reform have directed to the SPDOs Child Protection Practice (Signs of Safety) Framework Early Interagency Intervention: At Risk Newborn Babies; & Pre – Hearing Conferencing in the Perth Children’s Court. • Signs of Safety Practice Leader (PL) • Armadale, (28 kms/17.4 miles south of Perth CBD) • Signs of Safety Practice Leader Facilitator (PLF) • One of group x8 State-wide/ x4 Districts •Armadale, Fremantle, Peel, & Rockingham. Perth/Armadale & Laverton Two Examples 1. The Case of Baby L • Assessment & Planning occurred within the KEMH/DCP Protocol. Two meetings prior to birth that involved parents, Aunt, Maternal Grandmother, Mother’s lawyer, DCP Case Manager and Senior Field Officer. • Further Assessment & Planning occurred within the Pre-Hearing Conference Pilot Project over two meetings. 2. The Lemkuhl Family from Africa • Assessment & Planning for six children that entered the Department’s care following substantiation of physical harm to one child and risk of to others. Two meetings held and included the development of a Words & Pictures Explanation. The Case of Baby L • Pre-birth planning meetings (mid 2008) • Case example included in initial pilot. • Criteria met as children in care (01/09) & delivering at King Edward Memorial Hospital (KEMH) - Western Australia's public tertiary maternity, neonatal and gynaecological hospital. • Independent facilitation (i.e. not having day-to-day experience with the particular case). • Two separate meetings (approx 28 & 34 weeks gestation) Genogram of Baby L 1969 41 Grandma 1977 - 2004 1988 1988 1990 27 22 22 20 exPartner Dad Mum Sister 2004 2006 2008 2010 6 4 2 0 Girl 1 Girl 2 Boy 1 Baby L Danger Statements • DCP are worried that the state of the house will not have improved before the baby is born. They are especially worried about the cockroaches as the problem with them is severe. DCP are worried that the Mum & Dad will fight & the baby may get physically hurt accidentally & be scared or frightened if she hears or sees (as she gets older) the fighting. DCP are worried that Dad’s cannabis use and Mum’s depression may contribute to their newborn baby’s needs being neglected. (CF/DS) • (PH/DS) • (CF/DS) Timeline of Events • 2nd Assessment & Planning Meeting, checking on progress (05/09). • Sufficient safety for baby to go home with Mum & Dad from hospital (07/09). • Domestic Violent incidents & evidence of neglect. • Three months, baby L taken into care & Protection Order Application filed by DCP workers in the Perth Children’s Court (10/09). • Following first Court appearances, case is referred to SoS pre-hearing conference (11/09). Reflection • What Were the Issues? – Change of worker & inconsistency in application of SoS framework. – Revert back to ‘old way’ of working in time of uncertainty and worker anxiety. Service provision plan over safety planning. – Danger statements too vague in both. • What Worked Well? – – – – The safety planning. Improved working relationship with service recipients/voice. Clarity of information & position. Consultation/support & growth of practice depth. More Collaboration / Less Adversarial Increased SAFETY for the Joey...oops I mean child! Working with the Lemkuhl Family • • • • Provisional Protection & Care following Semeni’s disclosure of physical harm as a result of the physical punishment by her parents. The Department had concerns for the safety & wellbeing of all the children believing them to be at risk of ongoing physical harm. The assessment undertaken to determine if there would be enough safety for the children to return to their parent’s care. Swahili interpreters were used to assist the parents in communicating during the meeting. Those who attended the meeting were: Leabua Lemkuhl – Father Freya Lemkuhl – Mother Zareb Lemkuhl – Paternal Uncle Emma Gray – Community Care Tabari Bakinar – Community Care (Interpreter for Mum) Halima Kargua – Community Care Bobby Mwakohsi – Interpreter (Dad) Simon Bennett – DCP Team Leader Clare Malens– Senior Field Officer & Case Manager for the children. Working with the Lemkuhl Family • Signs of Safety Assessment & Planning Form. – Handwritten on the whiteboard. Typed & distributed within 2-3 days. • What were the issues/challenges with the process? – Use of two interpreters. – Meeting guidelines. • What worked well? – Children in care a total of 6-7 weeks before being reunified with safety planning. Working with the Lemkuhl Family • Words & Pictures Explanation. – Draft presented & further developed at second meeting. • What were the issues/challenges with the process? – The initial attempt to present the story to the children. – Worker knowledge/understanding of the significance of the document. • What worked well? – Explanation of the Department’s role. – Parent’s voice. – Benefit for the parents & other agency workers. – Example for workers. Where to from here? Future challenge around developing depth & consistency in assessment & planning, which is critical if we are to achieve effective safe outcomes for children & families. What is your next challenge? What will your ‘next step/s’ be to meet and succeed at your goal? Before I go… Thank you & over to Sonja...