Safeguarding Children: A Critical Reflection

This article provides a critical reflection on a case involving safeguarding children and highlights the importance of collaboration in protecting children from harm. It discusses the levels of need in social care intervention and examines the role of different professionals in identifying and responding to the needs of children. The article also explores the policies and acts related to safeguarding children and suggests areas for improvement.

Children 1
SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN
Name
Course
Professor
Institution
City
Date

Children 2
Safeguarding Children
The Incident
Student Health Visitor, Health Visitor (HV) and MAT worker did joint home visit to a
family with four children. Concerns were expressed regarding the stepmothers bond with one
of the children, which will be referred to as Jake throughout this reflection. Jake and his twin
brother initially lived with biological mother but were removed from her care at 14 months of
age due to neglect. Social care intervention was not continued when they initially moved to
live with their biological dad and stepmother.
Stepmother is under the care of her GP for anxiety and Dad has difficulty with
memory due to a brain injury. During the joint visit stepmother expressed she was struggling
to cope with Jake’s behaviour which is having on impact on her anxiety. Jake was observed
to be withdrawn and sat on the floor rocking. Stepmother reported he will cry for long
periods of time and she is struggling to bond with him. Stepmother reported that she did not
want Jake but wanted the other three children. Jake would often be singled out, stepmother
would go out with the other three children but leave Jake at home with dad.
Concerns were escalated to social worker by MAT worker and HV due to the
emotional impact this is having on Jake. Parents shared that they wanted Jake to stay a week
with them and then a week with other relatives to give them respite as Stepmother felt her
mental health was deteriorating due to Jakes behaviour. There was no emotional warmth
evident from stepmother towards Jake. Following social care assessment a strategy meeting
was held by social care and it was agreed for all children to be placed on section 47 and for
an initial case conference to be held.

Children 3
Critical Reflection
This incident prompted the student health visitor to look at threshold for social care
intervention. The Derbyshire Safeguarding Children’s Board (2015) highlights four levels of
need following a practitioners request for support. This consists of low level needs, emerging
needs, complex/serious needs and child protection concerns. The basic level, low level occurs
when the need is low and the universal as well as individual services may sufficiently handle
the needs without calling upon the involvement of other agencies. With emerging needs, a
number of early help options may be required and coordinated via an help assessment when
the concerns pertaining the needs and well-being of children are not clear, not being met or
not known. The complex/serious needs level comes up when the intervention may be at risk
or the needs at a state in which the health and development of the child may face serious
impairment. Level four, child protection concerns, comes up when there exists sufficient
suspicion that a child is already suffering or about to suffer serious harm as a consequence of
neglect or abuse. The setting up of these levels is a welcome move as it ensures that each
issue receives the sort of attention it deserves.
The family were initially considered to have emerging needs and therefore supported
by MAT due to stepmother struggling to manage Jake’s behaviour. However following
support from MAT and further home visits by the HV it became apparent that the family’s
needs were becoming more complex than the emerging needs level. It would seem that the
needs had indeed progressed to the child protection concerns. On the basis of what had been
reported, that Jake was withdrawn and would sit on the floor rocking, and had been singled
out and left at home when the mother would go out with other children, it can be argued that
indeed this was already a notch higher than the level that had been reported. It would indeed
have been sad to wrongly classify this issue as the child was experiencing what one would

Children 4
have termed beyond the serious needs level. The issue presented serious neglect and abuse on
Jake, making it important for an intervention beyond the ones ideal for level 3. I have to
question why the initial analysis failed to give this issue the weight it deserved. Could it be a
matter of flaws in the system?
Jake’s case can be explored through the lens set out for level. According to
Derbyshire Safeguarding Board, even a single traumatic event may adequately justify
significant harm. However, a number of significant events which change, damage or interrupt
the physical and physiological development of a child may be deemed appropriate. Serious
events that have not taken place but are suspected to, for example female genital mutilation or
forced marriage may also justify the need for the execution of section 47. With Jake in
particular, it is clear that the problems may be hampering his physical and physiological
development. The nature of the situation may also adequately justify that more could be
cooking, and that serious consideration may be essential. With his siblings, considering that
not much has been reported, the suspicion may have held ground. This is the case because
something about the parents may not have been adding up. In as much as I feel that this may
have been the best move for the children, I am not sure if it was the best for the parents. This
is so considering that the mother had presented no issues with the other children and it may
have been unfair to factor all the children. In this case, it would have been sensible to consult
more health visitors to justify the validity of the option.
A single assessment was carried out by social worker after HV and MAT shared
concerns regarding the impact on the children’s emotional development. Collaborative
working in safeguarding children is seen as an essential element for prompt identification of
needs and the execution of suitable responses (Department of Health, 2006; Children’s Act,
2004). If collaborative working was not implemented professionals would not be getting a

Children 5
holistic assessment of needs for a family. It is argued that involving a number of practitioners
is important in fully understanding the circumstances as well as need of children. Every
person who interacts with the child is tasked with identifying issues, giving information, and
responding as promptly as possible. It is equally important for everyone who works with
children to understand their role and that of other professionals. This is a critical aspect in
ensuring that agencies, organizations and practitioners work together effectively. Everyone
should understand and follow the arrangements made by the local agencies tasked with
safeguarding children. The statutory guide spells out the roles of agencies and organizations
tasked with delivering effective mechanisms for safeguarding children.
It is further revealed that the arrangements need to be promoted and strongly led at
local levels, more so by the local area leaders. The manner in which the arrangements were
done is in line with the provision of the Act, and creates a perfect picture as regards what
needs to be done to protect the children. In this case, in as much as the issue was about one
child, the other three were deemed in need because of the situations that had been presented.
I believe that in as much as most would predict that Jake was the one in trouble, the other
children may also have been affected and not showing it, or at different levels. It would
therefore have been essential to work on a mechanism geared towards ensuring that each
child was safe that working on what had been given by the parents. The choice gives room
for all the necessary consultations to ensure that the best outcomes for the children are
realized.
In as much as collaboration was done, I think that more would still have been done,
and would have affected the outcome. Only three professionals were involved in this case,
but it seems that more would have been needed for a clearer vision. The outcome may not be
for the benefit of the children as it may be assumed. The other three children seem to have

Children 6
been judged on the basis of simple assumption, which may have skewed the outcome. It
would have been prudent to call upon a number of professionals and people to get a clearer
picture and arrive at a decision that would indeed be favourable. The process also needs to be
streamlined to look into every angle and to ensure that no one is handled inappropriately.
In this regard, one would be right to argue that more can be done to improve the
policies. The children act of 2004 echoed the need for collaborations between agencies and
echoes the need for more accountability. The act mandated local authorities with the
appointment of children service members accountable for the delivery of services. The act
also echoed the need for local authorities and partners to collaborate to safeguard and
promote the wellbeing and health of children. The Children and Social Work Act of 2017 was
an effort to improve on the two previous acts. The key provisions of the act included the
Child Safeguarding Practice Review tasked with reviewing and reporting on trivial weighty
issues that are complex and of national importance.
The local safeguarding children boards were replaced with local safeguarding
partners, tasked with coming up with reports regarding local safeguarding practices. The act
also provided for the appointment of personal advisors, the creation of social work England,
and relationship education. It is clear that there has been significant progress in terms of
policies, but more can be done to attain the best for the interests of children. More can be
done as regards increasing the number of visits geared towards getting a clearer
understanding of the situation. The boards should also have in place papers that stipulate how
the assessments should be done to attain the best for all the people involved. The Acts should
also be strengthened that loopholes won’t affect the eventual outcome as it happened in this
case.

Children 7
Therefore, the policies for safeguarding children have a great potential in protecting
children from any sort of harm. In this specific case, the policies helped protected not only
the supposedly affected child, but others deemed at risk. In as much as the roles are well spelt
out, more can be done to ensure that the best is given, and by the best. Collaboration between
different players if unquestionably important in the realization of the best as regard protection
of children from any harm.

Children 8
Bibliography
Derby Safeguarding Children Board, 2015. Derby City and Derbyshire Thresholds
Document. [Online]
Available at: https://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/site-elements/documents/pdf/social-
health/children-and-families/support-for-families/derbyshire-safeguarding-children-
board-threshold-guidance.pdf
[Accessed 29 March 2019].
HM Government, 2018. Working Together to Safeguard Children. [Online]
Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/attachme nt_data/file/779401/Working_Together_to_Safeguard-Children.pdf
[Accessed 29 March 2019].