Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T00:28:29.959Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding Difficult Parental Behaviours During a Child Protection Investigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2015

Frank Ainsworth  and
Patricia Hansen
Frank Ainsworth*
Affiliation:
School of Social Work and Community Welfare, James Cook University, Townsville campus, Queensland 4811, Australia
Patricia Hansen
Affiliation:
Hansen Legal, Parramatta, NSW 2150, and Australian Catholic University, Sydney, New South Wales 2135, Australia
*
address for correspondence: Dr Frank Ainsworth, Senior Principal Research Fellow (Adjunct), School of Social Work and Community Welfare, James Cook University, Townsville campus, Queensland 4811, Australia. E-mail: frankainsworth@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When child protection caseworkers make first contact with the parents of a child (or children) who is suspected of being at ‘significant risk of harm’ they may encounter a range of hostile, angry and aggressive verbal responses from parents. If this contact results in a child being removed from parental care, it is not unknown for these responses to escalate into attempts at verbal intimidation and loud threats of personal violence. These behaviours then get recorded in case files and in materials submitted to the Children's Court to support the case for permanent removal of a child from parental care; these behaviours being presented as evidence of the parents’ unsuitability and unwillingness to comply with demands for changes in their child rearing practices. But how should child protection caseworkers view these less-than-helpful parental responses, and how should they, in turn, respond? This article explores this issue and offers a number of ways of understanding these behaviours, and canvasses new ways for caseworkers to respond when these behaviours occur.

Keywords

parental behaviourslanguage codespain-based behaviours
Type
Commentaries
Information
Children Australia , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 20 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainsworth, F., & Hansen, P. (2012). Doing harm while doing good: The child protection paradox. Child and Youth Services, 33, 146–157.Google Scholar
Anglin, J. P. (2002). Pain, normality and the struggle for congruence. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
Australian Legislative Ethics Commission. (2014). [No title]. Retrieved from www.alecomm.comGoogle Scholar
Barton, S., Gonzales, R., & Tomlinson, P. (2012). Therapeutic residential care for young people: An attachment and trauma-informed model of practice. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control: Theoretical studies towards sociology of language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Burgheim, T. (2005). The grief of families whose children have been removed. Implications for workers in out-of-home care. Developing Practice, 13 (Winter), 57–61.Google Scholar
Davies, P. (2011). The impact of a child protection investigation: A personal reflective account. Child and Family Social Work, 15, 201–209.Google Scholar
Economic and Social Research Council. (2014). Emotion regulation of others and self. London: ESRC. Retrieved from www.erosresearch.orgGoogle Scholar
Featherstone, B., White, S., & Morris, K. (2014). Re-imaging child protection: Towards humane social work with families. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Fulcher, L., & Moran, A. (2013). Sisters of Pain: An ethnography of young women living in secure care. Claremont, SA: CYC-Net Press.Google Scholar
Ghate, D., & Hazel, N. (2002). Parenting in poor environments: Stress, support and coping. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J., Solnit, A. J., Goldstein, S., & Freud, A. (1996). The best interests of the child. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Luke's Army. (2013). The toxic environment of child protection. Retrieved from www.lukesarmy.comGoogle Scholar
McNamara, P. (2014). A new era in the development of therapeutic residential care in the state of Victoria. In Whittaker, J. K., del Valle, J. F. & Holmes, L. (Eds.), Therapeutic residential care for children and youth: Developing evidence-based international practice (pp. 126–141). London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Schofield, G., Moldestad, B., Hojer, L., Ward, E., Skilbred, D., & Young, J. (2010). Managing loss and threatened identity: Experience of parents of children growing up in foster care, the perspective of their social workers and implication for practice. British Journal of Social Work, 40 (5), 1–19.Google Scholar
Scott, D., Arney, F., & Vimpani, G. (2010). Think child, think family, think community. In Arney, F. & Scott, D. (Eds.), Working with vulnerable families: A partnership approach (pp. 7–27). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Victorian Auditor-General. (2014). Residential care services for children. Melbourne.Google Scholar
Weatherburn, D., & Lind, B. (2001). Delinquency prone communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar