Social workers’ thinking processes in cases involving sexual behaviour between siblings

1. 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

2. 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.

3. Social worker decision making around whether siblings can: • remain living together • have contact with each other • return to live together again

4. 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

5. “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…

6. The social workers’ practice mindset

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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?

12. “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 longer-term, but not if under pressure, e.g. of time and resources

13. “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)

14. “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

15. The social workers’ practice mindset

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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?

19. Dr. Peter YatesTel: 0131 455 2762E-mail: p.yates@napier.ac.uk