Three social workers from North East Lincolnshire have been named and criticised by judge Simon Jack for their role in care proceedings. This was in line with the high court ruling from Sir James Munby that family courts should not prevent the naming of social workers, once care proceedings have concluded, unless there were compelling reasons to do so. Munby, president of the family division, has made his position clear on the need for open justice and transparency in the family court.
This may sound laudable, particularly as one of the buzz words of this era is “transparency”. The trouble is two other buzz words are “learning lessons”. Surely if we have learnt anything it is that naming and shaming frontline professionals who work in child protection brings disaster? The lives of the individuals involved may be ruined by the invidious actions of some areas of the media; but even more importantly it erodes the system we have in place for protecting our most vulnerable children. One of the most common phrases I hear is: “Who would want to be a social worker?”
The more we chip away at those who work on the frontline, the harder it becomes to find people with the right motives to do the essential work that social workers do every single day. In the case in North East Lincolnshire, a family lawyer who represented one set of grandparents in the case is quoted as saying the council has “hung the social workers out to dry”, and he is right.
If the work the social workers had done was of poor quality and their arguments biased, as the judge concluded in his summing up of the case, that is reprehensible. We are making decisions about children’s lives and it is right that the court criticises when it sees fit, although it was little reported that the guardian in the case agreed with the local authority’s plan. What I take issue with is naming the social workers.
I agree with the lawyer. These social workers have been hung out to dry by the council that employs them, and it is the council that should take responsibility. Where was the oversight in this case? All court statements and court care plans should be agreed and signed off by managers. If the social workers’ plans were so flawed, then why were they not stopped in their tracks?
Too often we see councils doing nothing to protect their staff and frontline workers scapegoated, so we do not scrutinise the system that sits behind them; it is much easier to blame an individual. The press falls for it again and again. It is lazy journalism. In a world of serious case reviews, we have moved beyond the blame game, even if the press and some others have not caught up. It is much more productive to look at how we can improve the system behind the individual. Fault rarely lies in one person.
So name the council, by all means, but naming individual social workers will do nothing but erode the child protection system. We should all be learning and trying to improve our practice, but that does not happen in a climate of fear and blaming and it never will. If we, as a society, really do believe in the protection of children then we should do more than pay lip service to it. We should support and value the profession that lies at its heart, rather than look for every opportunity to stick the knife in.
Social workers also need to speak out. You are a professional paid to do a job and if you feel ill-prepared for the work given to you, then take a stand. I don’t know the details of this case but too often we hear of social workers’ inadequacies in the court arena. Make sure your employer has given you the preparation and training to undertake the work it gives you or, in the nicest possible way, refuse to do it; otherwise you will continue to reinforce the stereotypes of our profession.
Why not join our social care community? Becoming a member of the Guardian Social Care Network means you get sent weekly email updates on policy and best practice in the sector, as well as exclusive offers. You can sign up – for free – online here.
.png?w=600)
