Browsing by Author "Caton, Anne Gwendolyn"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1

Restricted
Child abuse decision making: an exploratory study of decision making in cases of child abuse by Department of Social Welfare social workers in New Zealand
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 1988) Caton, Anne Gwendolyn
This study explores how social workers in the Department of Social Welfare in New Zealand make decisions about child abuse. The study reviews current literature, and relates this to a detailed analysis of twelve recent cases. Child abuse is defined in different ways by different people, depending upon their social, cultural and professional beliefs. Many people are concerned about the welfare of children and have different ideas about which children are at risk and how they should be protected. These conflicts have to be resolved in each case of alleged child abuse, and these difficult decisions fall mainly upon the mandated child protection service. Two key studies of the decision making process are reviewed. Phillips and Rempusheski (1985) present a model which describes five decision making pathways, each determined by the way a worker weighs up the various elements in a situation of alleged abuse. The elements include some objective factors, the range of actions possible, and the costs and benefits of these options for the child the family and the worker. Dingwall et al (1983) make clear that decision making problems in child abuse affect every member of society. There is a natural reluctance to recognise child abuse, to interfere with the family, and to separate a child from a parent, because families and parenting are so crucial to our societies. Child protection workers share this reluctance and try to protect children through minimal interference with the family. The written records of the twelve cases in this study were analysed through a process of constant comparative analysis consistent with Grounded Theory methodology. Two themes to emerge were the importance of the cooperation of the parents or prime caregivers, and the pressures on statutory services from workers in other agencies. Dingwall et al identify these as the two factors which, when negative, push the worker toward intervention. The present study also highlighted the pressures on the statutory social worker to act or to be seen to be acting, and suggests this may inadvertantly work against thorough assessment. The key child protection dilemma is to decide whether a child will be more harmed by the family or by intervention. This dilemma has been heightened in New Zealand recently by simultaneous changes in policy and practice which push for more rigorous child protection intervention on the one hand, and more autonomy for families, communities, and hapu on the other. The social workers in the cases sampled seemed to have successfully negotiated these various pressures and ensured the best interests of the child. The close links between statutory services and other organisations and individuals, between intervention decisions and social beliefs about children and families, show that child abuse decisions cannot be the responsibility of the mandated agency alone, but have implications for all people in society.