Social workers’ thinking processes in
cases involving sexual behaviour
between siblings
Dr. Peter Yates
Lecturer in Child and Public Protection, Edinburgh
Napier University
Heart and Head: Messages from research and practice
on supporting effective judgement in social work
22nd January 2016
Frames
A frame is like a mental filter. The world is not
perceived directly but through a mental filter,
comprising of templates of interpretations of prior
experiences, concepts and constructed knowledge.
Social worker decision making
around whether siblings can:
–remain living together
–have contact with each
other
–return to live together again
What I did
• 6 local authorities in Scotland
• Interviewed 21 social workers regarding 21
families
• 54 children involved in sibling sexual
behaviour
• 3 examples of sexual behaviour regarded
as mutually initiated
“It was just question marks.” (Jenny)
•
•
•
•
•
•
What actually happened
The impact of the behaviour
Chances of it happening again
Parents’ abilities to stop it happening again
Impact of removing child from the family
And on and on…
The social workers’ practice mindset
Parents as
wellintentioned
protective
Children as
vulnerable
and intending
no sexual
harm to
others
Siblings as
better
together
Sibling
relationships
as non-abusive
and of intrinsic
value
Children as vulnerable and intending no
sexual harm to others
• Doubting whether the behaviour happened
• Resisting labelling the behaviour as abuse
“But I always kind of felt that it was more ex-, experimentation than,
sexual abuse as such…And it did seem, well, maybe it wasn't a one-off,
we don't know…I know it's sexual abuse but it did still seem more, I don't,
I think in her wee, in her head, I'm not sure whether she'd got any
satisfaction out of it as such.
I don't know, was it ex-, I don't know. It seems bad saying it was just
experimentation, because it's much more than that, if you, I know if, it's
much, much more than that, it is abuse.” (Liz)
Child frame continued…
• Looking for reasons
• The perpetrator is a child, but the victim is the child
• Frame stronger the younger the child, the closer the social worker’s
relationship with the child, the more remorseful the child
Sibling relationships as non-abusive and
of intrinsic value
• Requiring a second incident
• Focusing on safety
“There was no evidence at the time of contact being damaging…although
what had happened was very serious and actually probably was quite
traumatic for Paul, erm. We didn't stop to question these things. That's
what I'm thinking just now…I didn't stop to think whether contact was
appropriate or not. I just assumed that it would be important to maintain a
bond.” (Scott)
Sibling relationships…
• Making rules
• Anticipating others’ decisions
“They are family members and there's only so long that you can go
without introducing them back together.” (Angela)
“There just became a time where we thought, right time's getting on
now…I don't think there was any particular incident or something
happened or work done…the decision was made because of a lapse of
time rather than…any particular change in risk.” (Liz)
Frame stronger if siblings had lived and grown up together, and the more
the social worker was acquainted with the children as siblings
Parents as well-intentioned protective
• ‘On board’:
– Someone I can work with
– Having a shared understanding of the problem
• Did they report the incident?
• Are they willing to accept support?
• Do they show commitment to both children, but seem willing to
prioritise the victim?
• “Er, the parents. And I think it was the fact of the
parents were fully on board… They were the ones
that went ahead to social work. They didn't have to
disclose that, who would know? They were the ones
that went ahead with the information. They wanted
support. They fully wanted support. They recognised
that he might be accommodated, but they wanted to
try at least attempt to have him at home.” (Mary)
• Expected to engage more meaningfully in longerterm, but not if under pressure, e.g. of time and
resources
“So that's how we knew that this really had…been
premeditated. Um, yeah, it did worry us. But,…I think
the fact that he was able to talk about it, and we were
able to address it and look at his safety planning,…it
didn't prompt us into saying, right let's get him right out
of there. Er, 'cause I think there was a lot of guilt
attached to it for him. He did feel bad about it. So,
yeah. I don't think that, any more so than anything else,
was a trigger. So, it was the reporting part, mum not
reporting and then not accordingly shifting bedrooms,
in terms of, let's look at this risk that's presented [that
made us question whether the children could remain
living at home].” (Emma)
“By that point I was actually past the thinking that we need to
accommodate these kids. I was quite past that, because [the parents]
were engaging really well by that point.” (Emma)
Frame stronger for social workers who know and like the parents
• In 8 out of 9 cases where parent (7 cases) or foster carer (2 cases)
were ‘on board’ and decision made to keep siblings together, there
was a further incident involving sibling or other close family
The social workers’ practice mindset
Parents as
wellintentioned
protective
Children as
vulnerable
and intending
no sexual
harm to
others
Siblings as
better
together
Sibling
relationships
as non-abusive
and of intrinsic
value
Conclusions and Recommendations
• No evidence that assessment-based
decisions are better than intuitive decisions
• Need to hold these important decisions to
the highest standards of accountability
(Munro 2008)
• Raise reflexive awareness of these frames
and how they may influence decision
making
And assess:
• The behaviour according to its characteristics
rather than those of the child
• The (emotional) impact of the behaviour on the
children (including listening to the views of the
children)
• Risk of recurrence
• The quality of the sibling relationship
• Parents’ capacity to protect
Discussion
• To what extent do the frames outlined resonate with our
own way of looking at the world?
• How might we develop and maintain a reflexive
awareness of the influence of our frames upon our
judgements and decision making, while at the same time
engaging in meaningful relationships with families?
Dr. Peter Yates
Tel: 0131 455 2762
E-mail: [email protected]