Dr Marian Brandon

1. Using inquiries for research 2. Understanding patterns - the child, the family, the practice in SCRs 3. Lessons for policy and practice improvement 4. Embedding findings into practice 5. Tools for practice

 Carried out when: Abuse and neglect are known or suspected and a child has: i) died or ii) been seriously harmed and there is cause for concern as to the way in which (agencies) have worked together to safeguard the child  “The prime purpose of a SCR is for agencies and individuals to learn lessons (asap) to improve the way in which they work both individually and collectively to safeguard and promote the welfare of children”

 Individual Management Reviews (IMRs) of involvement with child and family from each service/agency involved  An Integrated Chronology of involvement with the child/family  Overview Report – bringing together and analysing information from all IMRs and recomendations for future action  Executive Summary – to be made public (eg published on Local Safeguarding Children Board website)

England Wales

 Building on the Learning from Serious Case Reviews: a two year analysis of child protection database notifications (DfE ?2010) Sue Bailey, Pippa Belderson, Marian Brandon.  Understanding Serious Case Reviews and their Impact: A biennial analysis of serious case reviews (DCSF 2009) Marian Brandon, Sue Bailey, Pippa Belderson, Ruth Gardner, Peter Sidebotham, Jane Dodsworth, Catherine Warren and Jane Black.  Analysing Child Deaths and Serious Injury through Abuse and Neglect: What can we Learn? A Biennial Analysis of Serious Case Reviews (DCSF 2008) Marian Brandon, Pippa Belderson, Catherine Warren, David Howe, Ruth Gardner, Jane Dodsworth, Jane Black.

 Still Learning How to Make Children Safer : An Analysis for the Welsh Assembly Government of Serious Case Reviews in Wales – 18 cases Marian Brandon, Julie Young, Ruth Gardner, Jane Black (UEA/WAG 2010)  Learning How to Make Children Safer Part 2: An Analysis for the Welsh Assembly Government of Serious Child Abuse in Wales 10 cases- Marian Brandon, David Howe, Jane Black, Jane Dodsworth (UEA/WAG 2002)  Learning How to Make Children Safer: An Analysis for the Welsh Office of Serious Child Abuse in Wales 10 cases - Marian Brandon, Mark Owers, Jane Black (UEA/Welsh Office 1999)

(Derived from guidance in Working Together 2006 etc)  What are the themes and trends across reviews reports?  What can we learn about inter-acting risk factors?  What are the lessons for policy and practice?  (And for study) What can we learn about the process of SCRs to inform new guidance NB not preventability (overtly)

Layer 1- Mostly Quantitative Basic information from ‘notification’ database cases cases – 268 cases Layer 2 – Mostly Qualitative sub-sample of 47 cases, sample of 40 cases (information from Overviews reports)

Carer’s own relationship and history Carer’s state of mind, level of reflective function Caregiving environment generated by carer Social stress, relationships, environmental stressors Child’s behaviour, adaptive strategies, and developmental state. Theory to understand: Ecological transactional analysis/ developmental theory

“ [mother] had a series of violent partners…, suffered with mental health problems, anxiety and depression and was misusing alcohol. The family changed address frequently….all three children witnessed serious domestic abuse… [mother] failed to attend a number of medical appointments with the children.”  How different from any case on a social worker’s or health visitor’s case load where children don’t die??

 Correlation not the same as causation (eg high level of co-existing domestic violence, mental ill health, substance misuse does not predict child death/serious injury)  The need for ‘scientific rigour not tragic anecdote.’  Reviews are selective – they don’t represent all homicides or all serious injuries.  LSCBs have small numbers of SCRs (but growing) – how typical are these cases of child protection & safeguarding work?

 Are SCRs unique or part of a pattern? (Both). 350 SCRs between studied – some patterns evident (and new study of 268 cases confirms patterns)  Known to Social Services?: Just under half of children NOT known to SS at time of incident (BUT ¾ known to SS in past)  CP Plan? (confirmed CP): Less than 1:5 children with a current CP plan (BUT in 1:3 cases, child or sib had plan in the past)  Physical injury the major cause of death. Neglect an underlying theme in many cases but rarely the principal cause of death. More neglect and sexual abuse as prime concern in serious harm cases.

 AInfanticide and “covert” homicide  BSevere physical assaults  CExtreme neglect / deprivational abuse  DDeliberate / overt homicides  E/FDeaths related to but not directly caused by maltreatment, including suicides and deliberate self harm NB: Classifications differ in relation to the characteristics of the victims and perpetrators, the mode of death and the intentions behind the death.

Child factors and experiences Family and environmental factors Practice/professionals, agency factors Very young babies (prematurity, admissions to hospital, types of injury) Middle years children largely missing (protected?) Older child, hard to help (self neglect, chronic illness, sexual exploitation, ‘going missing’,bullying, Suicide Co-morbidity of Domestic violence, Substance misuse, Mental ill health Fathers, hostility, criminal convictions Patterns of hostility and cooperation Family History, eg neglect, previous child death, Poverty, poor living conditions, Frequent moves accidents, fires Child not seen/ heard Agency context, capacity, ‘organisational climate’ Preoccupation with thresholds e.g. CP threshold not met Professional anxiety, reluctance to act and challenge Supervision Ethnicity challenges Neglect, ‘start again syndrome’ Keeping track of families

 1:3 = Neglect (known to many agencies, long term cases ‘start again syndrome’)  1:3 = Physical assault, (known to few agencies, most shaken baby cases, context of known volatility and family violence in 87%)  1:3 = Agency neglect (Older children over 13 years, long agency history, self neglect including suicide, assault of others, hard to help, agencies have given up).

Efforts not to be judgemental, whole picture missed, silo practice. Invisible children Overwhelmed chaotic families, negative family support, drugs, violence, mental ill health, criminality Too much to achieve, low expectations, ‘success’ is getting through the door, muddle about confidentiality

Support and trust within teams. Confident professional Judgement, sustained challenge. Good working relationships with children and their families Child seen. kept in mind, understood Clear communication with other agencies. Good, reflective, challenging supervision

 ‘Do the simple things well’ (Laming 2003) - but acknowledge that child protection is NOT simple.  The capacity to understand the ways in which children are at risk of harm requires clear thinking.  Application of theory helps practitioners to hold steady in the midst of chaos  Practitioners who are overwhelmed, not just with the volume of work but by the nature of the work, may not be able to do even the simple things well.  “..ultimately the safety of a child depends on staff having the time, knowledge and skill to understand the child or young person and their family circumstances.” (Lord Laming 2009:10)

and the review context

“[mother] had a series of violent partners…, suffered with mental health problems, anxiety and depression and was misusing alcohol. The family changed address frequently….all three children witnessed serious domestic abuse… [mother] failed to attend a number of medical appointments with the children.”  Biennial Analyses of Serious Case Reviews (161 cases) and (189 cases)

Ecological transactional perspective :better understanding of parental history/capacity and assessment of risk

 Importance of understanding parental psychology  Importance of historical context and a dynamic, analytical assessment (not incident driven)  Interaction between child and caregivers  Consider dynamics of engagement with professionals  Incorporate this way of thinking into multi- agency practice and SCR work.

 Importance of understanding parental psychology  Importance of historical context and a dynamic, analytical assessment (not incident driven)  Interaction between child and caregivers  Consider dynamics of engagement with professionals  Incorporate this way of thinking into multi- agency practice and SCR work.

Carer’s own relationship and history Carer’s state of mind, level of reflective function Caregiving environment generated by carer Social stress, relationships, environmental stressors Child’s behaviour, adaptive strategies, and developmental state. Ecological transactional analysis (Brandon et al 2002)

 Borderline child protection threshold,  poor cooperation,  parental mental health,  neglect,  large family size,  ‘start again’ syndrome

 Differing professional views about the acceptability of poor, unhygienic conditions at home and other concerns.  Differing views about baby’s possible failure to thrive. Serious concerns from school about older siblings.  History of neglect, violence (between parents and towards children and from children) maternal depression, parental drug misuse. Father had conviction for violence with weapons. Sibling in residential care.

 Dangers of professionals ‘starting again’ with a new baby.  Increased family stresses missed (not coping with large family, worsening conditions at home, increased parental substance misuse).  Professional fear leaves children unprotected.  Lack of sustained professional challenge. Preoccupation with threshold rather than shared responsibilities.

 Neglect  Poverty and social isolation  Not meeting the threshold for intervention from children’s social care  Parental alcohol misuse and maternal depression

 Ellie, aged 3, youngest of 4 children, seriously burned in accident at home. Number of previous reports to CSC of all the children being seen with bruises, being left at home unsupervised and found wandering in the street. Pattern of the family being visited by CSC, an initial assessment being carried out, advice given and the case being closed. Concerns about the parents’ abilities to meet the children’s needs. Judged not to meet the threshold for safeguarding intervention.

child’s needs/characteristics/behaviour  Ellie’s nursery, and her siblings’ schools, had concerns about the children’s appearance, often unkempt, wearing inadequate or dirty clothing.  Attendance records poor for all children. mother’s history/profile/parenting capacity  Several years in care as a child - concerns about her own mother’s caregiving. Returned home but a difficult relationship with mother. Known to CAMHS as a teenager - behavioural problems at home.  Relationship with Ellie’s father began at age 16 - father of all four children.

Mother contd  Depression and panic attacks.  Her parenting just about ‘good enough’ although there were persistent concerns about adequate supervision. father’s history/profile/parenting capacity  Evidence of some domestic violence (police called to 1 incident). Problems with alcohol misuse. Little recorded information about him or his past. family environment  Overcrowding and unhygienic conditions. Little support from wider family, socially isolated. Neither parent in work, family had financial difficulties.

 ‘depressed neglect’ “the run down feeling that pervades passively neglectful families can affect the spirits of those who work with them” (Howe 2005 p135).  Missing medical appointments, poor school attendance and resigned compliance with CSC assessments - pervasive apathy common in families where there is this type of neglect.

 Mother’s history and her current depression will mean that it’s difficult for her to keep her children ‘in mind’.  Need to know more about Ellie’s father - extent of domestic violence unclear, alcohol misuse may be a trigger. Other meanings of alcohol misuse?– does his behaviour contribute to the helplessness and listlessness in family? OR Does he provoke fear in the children and his partner?  Either way, in the presence of a drunk parent the child is likely to feel emotionally abandoned and frightened (Howe 2005 p184).  What is it like to be Ellie?

Death at (institution). previously accommodated, hard to help. On occasions mum had refused to have her home because she felt that she was being disruptive and she was unable to manage her behaviour. X was placed in a variety of foster placements and children’s homes. Following her last discharge from accommodation, she went to a hostel and B&B with intermittent periods of return home (suicide 16). X was a carer for his disabled brother at home, and struggled both at school and in his home community where he was bullied (suicide age 14). No one professional seems to have known them (x and her sister) or been able to gain access to them for any substantial length of time…Even the schools did not get to know them well enough to identify other problems (other than non school attendance). (suicide age 16) Need for services to address trauma, rejection and long term abuse Need for accessible CAMHS and outreach services for children at lower levels of intervention.

 Brief summary of family history:  Child’s history, profile, characteristics and behaviour:  Mother’s (or carer’s) history, profile, parenting capacity:  Father’s (or carer’s) history, profile, parenting capacity:  Family environment:  Characteristics of professional involvement:  Analysis of interacting risk factors:  Lessons learnt:

Family events and environmental issues (including family strengths) TimescaleProfessional activity /involvement/ engagement with family Early family history Pregnancy of subject child Birth of child Child’s first year Age 2-4 yrs Age 5-9 yrs Age yrs Age 16+ yrs

Lessons learnt

Negative SCR cycle Positive SCR cycle Child at heart of SCR Child absent & out of mind

Level of intervention and degree of cooperation with agencies at time of incident n=47 Levels 3 and 4 Child protection/ regulatory/ restoratory services Levels 1 and 2 (Universal services and early needs) Lack of cooperation Co-operation

Level 4 ** * * *9 4 ** ** *7 * ** *2 * ** ** Level 3 22 ** 57 ** ** ** *0 * Level 2 ** ** ** ** ** ** *7 ** *9 85 ** 93 ** ** 24 Level 1 ** *9 ** 1 Not co- operative Avoiding /hostile 2 Low co- operation 3 Neutral/Some co-operation 4 Co-operative 5 Highly co- operative/per sistently seeking help KEY: KEY: <1 year 1-3 years 4-15 years >16 years Deaths = * Level of services (Levels 1-4) and Degree of parental/child cooperation →