Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result? Insanity?

You might well ask this question upon reading the new report from the Irish Ombudsman for Children, titled A meta-analysis of repetitive root cause issues regarding the provision of services for children in care. While the title is not likely to push this report to the best sellers lists, it should be read by child protection agencies everywhere. The Ombudsman, Emily Logan, pertinently asks why the same issues are being investigated repeatedly. In many ways, this could have been asked in a multitude of jurisdictions.

The report identifies concerns in 7 areas:

1. Assessment and care planning - "Effective intervention for each individual child depends upon a clear assessment and understanding of his/her needs" (p. 11)
2. Record keeping - The report sees this as a way to help focus action.
1. plan work with service users;
2. aid assessment and decision making processes
3. monitor staff's involvement with service users
4. monitor and review progress of set objectives and goals
5. monitor and review plans for children
6. provide an accurate account to a child as to the decisions made in relation to them and why (pp.14-15)
3. Provision of residential care - this raises the concerns around multiple placements and those that are inappropriate  for the needs of the child
4. Child protection for children in care - on p. 18 the report states that "The previous life experiences of many children in care have exposed them to increased risk of victimization. They have the right to expect and receive protection from within the child care system.
5. Social work practice and supervision - The report outlines that the public have expectations of high quality service from well trained workers. "However, social work is not well understood and public confidence is frequently influenced by the media's handling of individual cases" (p. 19). In this section, the report goes on to state a crucial conclusion: "If alternative care arrangements (foster care and residential care) are to promote stability and resilience it must promote opportunities for children to develop secure attachments." (italics added). Too often the child is lost in the process and instability is the result of poor management.
6. Interprofessional and multi-agency collaboration - This is an issue that is seen in multitudes of reports on child protection errors.
7. Governance arrangements - a clear focus on why an agency exists and how it is fulfilling its mandate

The report makes a profound and often forgotten statement on p. 19:

It is important to recognize that social workers are the lead professional group which assists the Sate in protecting children from harm through neglect, abuse or exploitation

The report also does an excellent job of covering the international obligations for children arising from United Nations conventions that many countries have signed.

I am finally struck by the reports use of the term corporate parenting. This is a concept that is often lost. It is indeed the State who acts as the parent for children in care in most jurisdictions. How accountable is the state for its actions? This is an important question that we should be asking on a frequent basis.

This report is crucial. It asks the hard questions that need asking - particularly if we continue to repeat the same errors across multiple jurisdictions as my own research is showing.

Child protection must present an unbiased view

A recent judgment in Nova Scotia raises some crucial issues for social workers and their lawyers who are presenting applications in court. The Honourable Justice Mona M. Lynch in the case of Ministry of Community Services v. F.B. noted some significant concerns with the bias of the presentation to court by the Ministry. She noted that the mother in this case was a difficult client. At paragraph 41, Justice Lynch notes:

There is no doubt that the mother was a difficult client to deal with, however, a parent’s failure to cooperate with the MCS does not equate to their child being in need of protective services

This matters a great deal. Difficult clients are hard to manage. They can seem to be "unworkable" when they are simply feeling powerless against the greater force of child protection. Justice Lynch appears to take the position that difficult should not be used as the basis for determining whether a child is in need of protection.

Justice Lynch goes on to make a much more crucial point - how invested should workers be in the outcome of the case. At paragraph 47, she states:

Witnesses for the MCS should not be personally invested in the outcome of a proceeding.   The proceeding is about the best interests of children, not who wins or loses. 

When a worker has been putting many hours into a case, has formulated a case plan and has aimed at succeeding with that plan, it is natural to want to achieve what one has set out to achieve. Being invested in that plan may hinder the view that one has to a case. Research has shown that this can create a information bias filtering out new information that contradicts the case plan. This is known as confirmation bias. Justice Lynch became concerned as she notes later in that same paragraph:

The court expects balance.  The court expects that the witnesses from the MCS provide evidence of both the good and the bad that they have witnessed.  The court expects that they will just relay the facts without attempting to colour the evidence in a negative light.  Sadly in this case, with few exceptions, the witnesses who work for the MCS were not impartial or unbiased.  They appeared to be so invested in the outcome of the case that it has affected the weight the court can give their evidence.  They appeared unable to say something positive about the mother even when there were positive things to say.   The evidence of many of the access facilitators can be given little weight.  This is unfortunate because the access facilitators spent the most time with the mother and the children of all of the witnesses.  

In essence, the bias was such that the credibility of the evidence was in question. If a case has merits, then it does not need workers to filter out data that may not support their preferred position. What this case shows is that when a judge becomes concerned that the data has been selected to support a position as opposed to offering the court the data it needs to weigh the merits, then the usefulness of the child protection witnesses wanes.

It is rare that a parent is totally without merit. By putting both the strengths and the weaknesses before the court, the judge can then weigh the balance. If the worker feels that they must do that ahead of time, then the worker is beginning to take the place of the court. That is dangerous.

Justice Lynch's comments are a good reminder that courts are ultimately responsible for determining the best interests of the child when child protection takes matters before them.