1. What should a social worker do to progress the case?
2. What are the legal bases for the plans you have proposed in Question 1?
3. What legal difficulties might there be in addressing the case?
1. Identify safety measures to be taken for the protection of Lucy to prevent her from harming herself, as the A and E staff have raised concerns that she at significant risk of serious self-harm
2. In case study 1, there will be the application of S17 CA89 where the social provider will have the duty to protect and safeguard Lucy’s (11 years old child) welfare in her home by providing her with services she will significantly need.
Ø The social worker has the duty of identifying Lucy’s wishes and feelings as per S53 CA2004.
Ø It is the responsibility of the social worker to identify the harm criteria that the child in need is exposed to under S31 (9) CA89. In our case, Lucy’s behaviour becomes more challenging in the days leading to the contact sessions, and she is more withdrawn and moody in the week after the contact session. The harm criteria that Lucy is likely to have been exposed to are the impairment she might have suffered from:
Seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another, in our case her mother (harm criteria (c) s 120 Adoption and children Act 2002)
one caused by ill treatment( criteria (a)).Under S31 (2) CA 89
There is enough evidence that Lucy is in significant risk of self-harm as the head teacher at her school, Mrs. Greenwood, has noticed that she has disclosed her desire to harm herself and threatened to cut herself with scissors in the art class. In fact, the twins fail to attend the next court session and the contact supervisor finds out the failure to attend, as told by Susie, is because Lucy accidentally hurt herself with a pair of scissors. The court therefore, needs to make a care order or supervision order. Because the evidence indicates that
Lucy is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm S31(2) CA 89(a)
Susie, Lucy’s current caregiver had not noticed her threats to hurt herself with scissors, in fact; she reports to the contact person that Lucy accidentally hurt herself with the scissors. Therefore, another harm that Lucy could be exposed to could be
harm due to care given/not given or
child beyond parental control S31(2) CA 89 (b)
How do we establish with certainty the root cause/ motivator for Lucy’s desire to harm herself?
Ø Lucy has indicated that the children (Mike and Lucy) no longer wish to see their mother in the contact session. As per S53 CA2004, the court should seek directly find out from the children their true wishes and feelings concerning the contact sessions with their mother.
Ø The social worker ought to get a Care Order or Supervision Orders31 CA89, and then assess the children while adhering to S17 (2) CA89 where children are best brought up within their own families wherever possible . The assessment therefore should be done in the children’s home as they are offered the necessary services such as guidance and counselling by specialists, according to the provision in S17 CA89 S17(1) Duty for LA to protect and safeguard welfare of CIN in their area + duties to provide services
3. A social worker may have trouble in finding the real root of Lucy’s threats to hurt herself. Home supervision alone may not provide sufficient answers to the causes of Lucy’s challenges. As much as offering Lucy services such as guidance and counselling may help her overcome her mood swings band desire to hurt herself, the root cause of her problems may remain unknown.
Ø From the social worker’s speculations, Lucy’s problems could be caused by the type of care given/not given or child beyond parental control as under S31 (2) CA 89 (b).
Ø Through the supervision, this cause may be confirmed or ruled out.
Ø In the event that it is ruled out, the social worker will want to explore if Lucy’s problems are started when she saw or heard the “ill-treatment” of another, in our case her mother (harm criteria (c) s 120 Adoption and children Act 2002).
Ø However, it will be difficult for the social worker to confirm or reject that speculation, as according to Susie, the children refused to go to the contact sessions with their mother. Due to the children’s unwillingness to have a contact session with their mother, the social worker will not have the opportunity to supervise the children as they interact with their mother, and will therefore not be in a position to confirm or rule out the speculation.
Case study 2: May and Peter
1. What should a social worker do to progress the case?
2. What are the legal bases for the plans you have proposed in Question 1?
3. What legal difficulties might there be in addressing the case?
1.
To help Peter make decisions that serve his best interest in regarding his well-being that would cater to his ongoing health needs and onset dementia, as this are concerns that have been raised by his Doctor.
2. In case study 2, the social worker will need to establish and promote the well being of May 60, and Peter 63, under S1 Care Act 2014. May and Peter live together in a two bedroom flat located on the 10th floor.
Ø May has a medical condition that restricts her mobility whereas Peter was recently diagnosed with breathing problems and onset Dementia. Both of them are in need of healthcare and housing support.
Ø Their GP advises them to be moved to the ‘care and support unit’ because caring for them was likely to become difficult due to their medical needs increasingly. However, both of them are not in favour of being moved to different ‘care and support’ units, as they desire to live together and take care of each other’s needs.
Ø S. 10 (3) of the Care Act 2014 defines a carer as: “An adult who provides or intends to provide care for another adult (“adult needing care”). In this case, the definition of a carer does not apply to either May or Peter. Both of them are elderly, and in need of care, they are therefore not in a position to care for each other.
Ø In fact, May and Peter’s needs fall under S. 42 Care Act 2014, which states that: a local authority has reasonable cause to suspect that an adult in its area (whether or not ordinarily resident there) has needs for care and support (whether or not the authority is meeting any of those needs). If an adult is experiencing or is at risk of, abuse or neglect, and because of those needs is unable to protect himself or herself against the abuse, neglect or the threat of it.
Ø Under Key Principles in Mental Health: Mental Health Code of Practice 2008; Mental Health Act Amended Code of Practice 2008, regarding the Respect Principle, the Social worker has the responsibility of respecting May and Peter’s diverse needs, wishes and feelings regarding their staying arrangements, treatment and provision of healthcare. May and Peter’s desires are ascertainable and practicable, therefore, the social worker needs to find them a solution that is consistent with the purpose of his work without engaging in unlawful discrimination.
Ø The social worker should help them apply for better housing and social services that would be convenient for them. Since they prefer to be taken care of from the comfort of their homes, arrangements should be made for their requests to be met. As May and Peter are not in a position to take care of each other, a caregiver who is flexible enough to live and serve them in their home should be found.
Ø The social worker as per S.10 (Care Act 2014), should assess May and Peter’s need for support regarding their financial resources, if he/she finds them to be insufficient to meet their needs, he should help them make a request for direct payments under S. 31 Care Act 2014.
3. May’s Occupational therapist and Peter’s Doctor advice that both of them are need of constant medical attention, due to their delicate health conditions. However, providing constant medical care at their comfort of their homes would be challenging, as it would be expensive and not practically possible to insufficient resources at their disposal.
