toptermpaper.com

The correlation between colonization and domestic violence is undeniable given the plethora of scholarly and historical data. The main misconception that exists in this area relates to the belief that the violent aspects of colonization and its associated abuse lay directly at the feet of Westerners or other outside cultures and influences. Domestic violence, in its many forms, is forced upon men, women and children from many sources including people in their own society.

In addition to the definitions and correlations of colonization and domestic violence, this paper also discusses the colonization, social structure and abuse of Aboriginal Peoples including the Maori tribe of New Zealand, Native Americans, and the First Nation communities of Canada as well as the diseases thrust upon the colonists by the colonizers.

Also examined are the relationships between modern abuse related to colonised cultures and its possible prevention.

Domestic Violence

The United States Justice Department’s Office on Violence Against Women provides a definition of the various types of domestic violence:

We define domestic violence as a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone. (2014)

The types of domestic abuse include physical, sexual, emotional, economic and psychological abuse. Domestic violence is not limited to any particular race, religion, gender, age, educational or socio-economic factors.

For the purpose of this paper, domestic violence is categorized as violent behavior that has been inflicted on one culture by another since colonization took place. Oftentimes the victims are the colonists who are subjected to abuse in its various forms by the colonizers but eventually that abuse transfers into abuse between members of the oppressed culture. The reasons for the abuse may disappear but the behavior can last and even accelerate through future generations.

Colonization

The term colonization comes from the Latin for “to inhabit”. Colonisation most often refers to an outside group moving into a previously inhabited area. Ever since man learned to travel, he has desired to conquer new lands either by developing a profitable relationship with the indigenous peoples or, more commonly, by taking over the land and other resources through a threat of force or through direct violence. Colonisation can be beneficial if it is done with respect and cooperation of the inhabitants. Some regions, especially underdeveloped regions, may benefit significantly from colonization by an outside culture. These regions may experience in an increase in world knowledge, medical care, economic growth and more. There are instances however, that show the dark side of colonization and the domestic violence with which it has often been associated. History is filled with tales of forceful colonization despite the language used to describe it – exploration, eminent domain, settlements.

More often than not when a territory is colonised without the express permission of the colonists, violence ensues. The violence may come in the form of a direct attack or through cultural oppression. The colonists may be imprisoned, raped or beaten into submission. This form of abuse lasts much longer than the life span of the abuser and abused. It is carried into future generations through culture, belief systems and trauma, often causing particular cultures to be more prone to the violence committed against their ancestors or, worse, become the abusers.

Correlation between Colonisation and Domestic Violence

People intent on colonizing new lands or infiltrating existing cultures typically held the strict belief that their religion, politics, education and culture were far superior to that of the indigenous people therefore it was common practice for the new settlers to impart, often forcibly, their culture and belief systems on the indigenous peoples. As a result of this effort, the indigenous peoples were required to take on the characteristics and culture of the invaders, usually due to the threat of violence. Because indigenous people were often less educated than the invading population, they were seen – and treated – as an inferior society.

This is not to say that the indigenous cultures were perfect before they were infiltrated by the colonizers. Each culture has its own unique set of beliefs and circumstances. The difference may be that there is limited, if any, knowledge or documentation on the culture of these peoples before they were colonised.

Colonization and Patriarchy

Patriarchy, the cultural practice of revering the male gender as the head of society, including the family structure, can be directly linked to colonization and the mistreatment of the female gender. Historically speaking, cultures with a patriarchal view held little regard for the female gender which often permitted substandard treatment of females. This treatment often led to various forms of domestic violence. A patriarchal belief system is common even in the modern world although great strides have been made to protect women and children from violent males often taught to be dominant by colonizing cultures.

While the majority of the invading people held a patriarchal view, that is not without exception. Many indigenous cultures are matriarchal in nature, particularly the Native American and First Nation communities of Canada. The shift in leadership from matriarchal to patriarchal often caused women to be viewed as inferior as men were taught not to respect women as they once had. As a result, women in many cultures were viewed as little more than property allowing the male population to treat the women in any way they saw fit, including a cycle of domestic violence that would remain in place for generations.

According to Kanuha (2002), there are several strategies for claiming superiority over another gender or culture. The first is to convince the colonists that their ways are superior.

The second strategy is to create a delineation between the colonizers and the indigenous peoples through segregation including the separation of men and women. The third strategy of colonization is to use domestic violence to control the colonists. This may include any and all forms of physical, emotional, spiritual and psychological abuse.

The fourth strategy is to take control of the colonists’ economic resources including natural resources.

The fifth strategy is controlling the culture and limiting outside resources of knowledge and information. In some cultures they are permitted to see only media images of women that were created by men; images that often objectified women. Another form of control is to prohibit the use of native language and education as well as to deny the colonists the opportunity to decide or vote on their own futures.

While patriarchy is undeniably tied to colonization, it must be mentioned that men also suffered from these same issues. While men may have been seen as dominant, the colonists were second to the colonizers and therefore often suffered from the same abuses as women.

Colonisation and Disease

One form of domestic violence is to deny one appropriate health care. During the colonization of many regions of the world, indigenous peoples were exposed to and infected to new diseases brought by the colonists yet were denied adequate care. In fact, many of the colonizers were often quarantined from the recently exposed natives to protect them from diseases they brought to the region. The belief was that the natives, unable to withstand any number of exotic pathogens, were biologically inferior.

It was the development of world trade routes as well as the desire to conquer new lands that encouraged Europeans to cross borders into previously unexplored territories. As a result, they infected entire cultures with disease, namely tuberculosis and small pox, two diseases responsible for killing the majority of Americans and Europeans in the 18^th and 19^th centuries. Additionally, the colonizers tended to bring with them newly domesticated animals which added another level of potential disease to the natives. As the mortality rate of the colonists rose, the colonizers were able to increase their presence and domination over the remaining people and their lands.

Colonisation of the Maori, Native Americans and the First Communities of Canada

The Aboriginal tribes of the South Pacific, particularly the Maori, have a long and violent history of being colonised by Western Europeans. The Maori were once the colonisers of New Zealand, taking over the island through force and causing the genocide of the island’s indigenous peoples. The Maori began to trade with Europe in the 1700s, bartering fish and land for beads, cloth and other items. When potential invaders attempted to invade New Zealand, the Maori embraced violence and beheaded the infiltrators. They often participated in cannibalism rituals which led to a reputation of the Maori as being brutal savages. The shift toward colonisation began when missionaries arrived in New Zealand with the hope of converting the Maori to Christianity. The missionaries traded goods for land and built New Zealand’s first church.

The Maori began to trade in muskets which created an arms race between New Zealand and its neighbors. Violence escalated. Although the Maori and the missionaries tended to remain separate, many Maori began to convert to Christianity. Relationships between Britain and the Maori strengthened. Britain wanted the Maori to pledge its allegiance to the throne in exchange for a guarantee that no one would attempt to rob the Maori of their lands. While many Maori refused to link themselves to the Queen, 46 chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi, hoping to end the violence.

While the Maori as a whole did not willingly shift to British rule, the region began to thrive from the relationship. Eventually, the British established a new capital in Aukland and the country continued to thrive.

The history of the Native American tribes is well documented in most school texts. Christopher Columbus believed he had discovered a shorter route to China when he landed in the Bahamas. Columbus, eager to prove that he was a superior explorer sought only three things in his travels – to educate people about God, to gain glory for his explorations, and to gain fame and fortune from the gold, spices and other resources the trip would provide. Due to these factors, Columbus’ arrival in the Bahamas was ill fated for its people. Columbus and his crew pillaged the land and were, in essence, responsible for the deaths of nearly 60,000 inhabitants of the islands over a period of the next 30 years.

Upon arriving in America, Columbus discovered that there were people living on this new land. This contact encouraged other people to travel to the New World. The infiltration of Europeans was not welcome by many of the 160 native tribes. While some tribes were friendly with each other and with the Europeans, many were not. Wars ensued. A large percentage of Native Americans were wiped out by the arrival of small pox, diminishing its population by as much as 70%. As the colonisation of the Americas continued, the Europeans began to outnumber the “savages”, forcing them into more remote areas of the country. Violence continued to escalate between the Europeans and Native Americans. Although it was the Europeans that began the barbaric practice of scalping, the act was solely attributed to the Native Americans who often retaliated in kind. The reputation of the Native Americans as uncivilized savages grew and along with it, any respect for their culture all but vanished.

The legacy of the First Nation of communities mirrors that of the Native Americans and, in fact, they are in some way of the same family as their lands were stolen in the name of capitalism and racism.

Throughout 100 years of violence between the Europeans and native cultures, the natives continued to be pushed back until eventually the majority of tribes were relegated to reservations. The segregation and loss of their culture created a wider gap between the cultures. Missionaries continued to attempt to colonise the natives by preaching and introducing modern ways into their culture. Domestic violence between factions continued as women were abused, men were beaten and killed. Women and children were also sold into the slave trade as sexual objects.

Prevention of Domestic Violence in Colonised Territories

It has been stated that the abuse and objectification of indigenous peoples carries with it a dark stain that has permeated generations. In addition to carrying that sense of shame and continued chain of abuse, each individual in the culture also carries with him a sense of being inferior. This sense of inferiority and the legacy of abuse are two of the reasons that indigenous peoples tend to have a higher rate of abuse as well as suicide.

The prevention of domestic violence in colonised territories, despite the location, begins with education. In modern society it is known that abuse in any form is morally and ethically wrong as well as being illegal. Still, incidents of abuse occur every day and perpetrators are often allowed to wander free while the abused suffer.

Some domestic violence treatment programmes may give special consideration to the history of trauma suffered by a particular culture, particularly those that have been colonised and show a marked increase of substance abuse or number of psychological issues. One such programme, popular in the United States is the Duluth Model in which the abuser is treated based on his history of trauma, beliefs in victimization and power over the abused as well as the shame factor. The programme has been used in the education and court systems to decrease the percentage of abuse, particularly by men.

Smith (2006) states:

Researchers are beginning to confirm what common sense dictates: that violence between individuals, while influenced by social and cultural variables, is more parsimoniously explained by an examination of individual characteristics, contexts, and functions of behavior. Not surprisingly, empirical research is beginning to identify shame, individual stressors such as substance abuse and trauma history, and personality characteristics as main contributors to violent behavior in intimate relationships.

Smith also intimates that while there are many programmes and models that claim to have the best recipe for preventing abuse, it is not clear if one has any superior efficacy. Smith asserts that domestic violence activists and agencies will see the most success when treating the individual ascribed to the abuse.

Conclusion

The correlation between colonisation and domestic violence has been proven through myriad scholarly articles, texts and studies. Research has shown that the oppression of the colonists by colonisers creates deep inner turmoil that must be expressed. Since the anger, indignation and shame usually cannot be expressed directly at the abuser, the victim may turn those feelings inward which may result in depression, substance abuse, and even suicide. However, some victims will take out those feelings on others that may be weaker than they. In this case, it is often women and children that may suffer from physical, emotional, psychological, financial and verbal abuse. While many social programmes exist to combat domestic violence, they are often not designed to address the underlying trauma of the victim or the abuser.

When one culture has been oppressed by another, a sense of inferiority is instilled. The oppressor intends to take what it wants from the oppressed whether it is land, money or even its own women and children. The oppressor often uses whatever means necessary to achieve his goals and will subject the oppressed to various types of violence and abuse. The oppressor may begin to believe that the violence is justified and that belief, that victim or abusive mentality may remain and perhaps even escalate throughout future generations. As women are objectified due to their cultures and perhaps beaten or raped, they tend to believe that the behavior is “normal” or perhaps even earned. Combatting those emotions and putting an end to domestic violence among the colonised cultures goes much deeper than the formulation of any law or social programme, no matter how valid. The issue must be addressed at the deepest level – the level of one’s belief system. While many programmes may treat only the victim or the abuser, it is imperative that both sides of the conflict be dissected and examined. The history of one’s culture can shed light on personal behavior even if the history seems far removed. Learning one’s history as well as becoming educated on healthy forms of communication and interaction are the only ways in which domestic violence can be effectively addressed. Only then is it possible to perhaps not eradicate but at least lessen the occurrences of domestic violence in these and other cultures.

Introduction

The following essay proposes to consider the question of collaborative working in social care, looking in particular at the impact of collaborative working between agencies and professional disciplines within the context of children and families. This represents an especially complex problem to attempt to tackle with the issues of both collaborative working and working with children families subject to an almost constant process of reform and change in the contemporary era. When, for instance, we pause to consider the way in which collaborative work has become such a central feature of contemporary social policy in western liberal democracies with the promulgation of the partnership approach to government dictating the pattern of a variety of social, cultural, economic and political initiatives, we can see that any discussion relating to multi-agency work must reside in some part within the realms of a constantly changing political ideology that seeks in the first instance to instil new parameters for social work practice (Quinney, 2006:5-21). Likewise, when we consider the changing nature of working with children and families in the contemporary era, we can see that a decidedly pervasive legislative and policy framework increasingly that seeks to infringe upon the practice of social work on both an individual and a collaborative level cannot help but impact upon our understanding of the nature and role of the social worker within the context of children and families (O’Loughlin and Bywater, 2008:14-27). Thus, we need to observe from the outset the way in which the following essay constitutes an inherently subjective discussion where any conclusions garnered should be understood as open to further change and reinterpretation.

For the purpose of perspective, we intend to adopt a dualistic approach to the problem at hand, looking firstly at the political, ideological and legal context in which social work with children and families currently takes place. In this way, we will be better able to demonstrate an effective understanding of the field of child and family work, the social work role and the multidiscipline system in relation to children in need and children in need of protection. Secondly, we will look at the implications of our own evidence-based research yielded from group dynamics involving a specific case study of children and families. In this way, we will be better able to demonstrate an understanding of the importance of evidence-based practice. Moreover, in this way, we will be better able to consider both the strengths and the weaknesses of the collaborative approach to social service provision at the dawn of the twenty first century. Before we can begin, though, we need to briefly consider the historical context in order to establish a conceptual framework in which the remainder of the discussion can take place.

The political, ideological and legal context of working with children and families

To understand the significance of the multi-agency, collaborative approaches to child protection we need to first mention some of the most profound cases of child cruelty, which have acted as a launch pad for reforms of social services. When, for instance, we pause to consider the case of Dennis O’Neil who was starved and subsequently beaten to death by his foster father in 1945, we can see that instances of extreme abuse of looked after children directly contributed to reform of the child social services system. Maria Colwell was similarly abused and killed at the hands of her stepfather in spite of over fifty official visits to the family by social services, health visitors, police officers and housing officers before her death in 1973. As a result of the ensuing enquiry into Maria Colwell’s death, looked after children were assigned a ‘guardian’ by the state. (Cocker and Allain, 2008:24) Likewise, public outrage, internal inquiries and institutional reform accompanied the murders of Jasmine Beckford in 1984 and the uncovering of widespread sexual abuse amongst looked after children in Cleveland in 1987. In addition, the wrongful fostering of children on the Orkney Islands in 1991 after social workers mistakenly assumed that parents were part of a satanic cult triggered a reconfiguration of child protection policy, acting as a timely reminder as to the fallibility of decision making at an individual as well as an organisational level.

Yet while it is true that children’s services have been influenced by individual historical cases of neglect, abuse and murder, it is also true that social work and children’s services are inherently tied to the dominant political ideology of the day. As we have already asserted, social work practice in the contemporary era is an inherently political issue with a pervasive neoliberal political ideology dictating the pattern of social policy and welfare reform over the course of the past two decades. Nowhere is this modernising neoliberal impetus more prominent than in the field of social work with children and families (Johns, 2009:39-54). Beginning with the Children’s Act of 1989 and continuing with the amended Children’s Act of 2004, the state has increasingly sought to make provisions for disadvantaged children and failing families in order to reduce the debilitating ill effects of marginalisation and social exclusion.

These two Acts, in conjunction with a variety of other related social policies and statutory framework such as the Every Child Matters programme, constitute an ideological watershed with regards to the way in which the state legislatively copes with the numerous issues arising from children and families. Most obviously, these pieces of legislation and the broader emphasis upon social inclusion that they entail telegraph a new way of responding to issues arising from children and families by looking to target the causes (rather than the consequences) of neglect, exclusion, abuse and the ubiquitous problem of failing families. As a result, it is important to observe the way in which the reforms initiated over the closing decades of the twentieth century and the opening decade of the twenty first century represent a move away from the permissive social policies of the post-war years so as to incorporate a discernibly more preventative agenda for working with children and families (Morris, Barnes and Mason, 2009:43-67).

It is within this climate of preventative action that we must consider the genesis and subsequent evolution of collaborative social work practice with multi-agency work being intrinsically tied to the broader imperative of safeguarding children. The statutory framework of the Every Child Matters initiative, underpinned by the Children’s Act (2004) is, for instance, inherently tied to the partnership, collaborative approach to social service provision involving the active participation of professionals across all spectrums who work with children and young adults (Brammer, 2009:166). Understood in this way, the role of the social worker represents one part of a broader network of rights and responsibilities incorporating General Practitioners, psychologists, educational practitioners, housing association officers, National Health Service professionals, law enforcement agencies, government officials, local councillors, parents, family members and any number of related workers and associates who are able to help formulate an effective social agenda which places the child at the epicentre of all key decision-making. In this way, the social worker is better able to communicate with children who have suffered or are suffering from cases of neglect and abuse (Davies and Duckett, 2008:164-166).

As a consequence, it is clear that partnership and collaboration should be understood as the ideological bedrock of the contemporary legal and political framework for dealing with children, families and young adults, constituting the single most important guiding principle for social workers operating in the highly complex, risk-orientated contemporary social sphere. Fuelled in some part by the high profile cases of internal failings contributing to children’s’ neglect where, most notably, the untimely death of Victoria Climbie in 2000 highlighted “gross failures of the system” (Laming, 2003:11-13), collaborative working between agencies and professional disciplines is today understood as the most viable means of positively impacting upon the well being of both children and families (Brammer, 2009:182.)

In response to the murder of Victoria Climbie and, more pertinently, as a result of the economic imperative to cut back on public sector spending, the New Labour government, followed by the present coalition government, has increasingly sought to further the multi-agency approach to social services. The Children’s Plan (2007), for example, constitutes an ideological extension of the collaborative methodology championed in the Every Child Matters campaign with the government, agencies and professionals all charged with “improving children’s lives.” (The Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2010:29) Safeguarding the well being of children is therefore no longer considered to be the sole responsibility of the state; rather, it is clear that promoting the welfare of children and families is increasingly dependent upon adopting an integrated approach with a variety of agencies, organisations and individuals sharing the responsibility for welfare while at the same time ensuring that the child remains the focus of proactive, preventative action (The Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2010:31-34). It is consequently important to underline the strengths of the multi-agency approach to social care provision, underscoring in particular the way in which focusing upon collaborative working with children and families offers a holistic approach to what is an essentially multi-faceted problem.

However, while we are correct to acknowledge the modernising ideology that underpins modern social work practice, we also need to observe the way in which the day to day practice of social work with children and families has revealed a significant underlying chasm between, on the one hand, the preventative legal framework and, on the other hand, the deep-seated flaws in the multi-agency, inter-disciplinary approach to welfare provision in the modern day (Oko, 2008:16-39). In spite of the best efforts of policy makers and in spite of the preventative statutory framework enshrined in the Every Child Matters initiative, there remain deep-rooted structural and logistical problems pertaining to the multi-agency approach. For example, the horrific death of Baby P in 2007 which occurred after social services, National Health Service consultants, and police officers demonstrates that there remains a clear and identifiable problem with regards to communication between agencies, organisations and professions.

Moreover, the harrowing case of Baby P serves to demonstrate that, even when extreme levels of abuse are being reported, there remains a problem regarding intervention. The multi-agency approach to social care provision in the contemporary should therefore be understood as being inherently flawed with the collaborative system beset by a variety of structural weaknesses and new ideological complexities (Milner and O’Byrne, 2009:19-23). Although we should not seek to overlook the strengths of multi-agency, collaborative working we must, as Eileen Munro attests, consider the way in which an exceedingly risk-orientated socio-political culture has created additional problems for social workers in the modern era with an increasingly bureaucratic, administrative understanding of social services hampering the attainment of a critical understanding of the underlying economic, cultural and political factors that create problems in the social sphere (Munro, 2008:58-76). An over-emphasis upon research and policy has not yet yielded a significant reduction in the chasm between theory and practice.

Working in a Group: The Lessons for Working with Children and Families

Hitherto, we have focused upon attempting to understand how the dominant political, ideological and legal framework looks to dictate the pattern of social services at the dawn of the twenty first century. We have also seen that while policies and frameworks seek to instil a fresh, collaborative approach to working with children and young families the practical reality of working in a multi-agency context still leads to significant problems pertaining to communication. This, in the final analysis, is an inevitable consequence of working with the dynamics of groups where there is little by way of direction and where, more importantly, different group members harbour different perspectives and different ambitions with regards to the nature, role and purpose of the project at hand.

In the group that I worked in, there were six participants. Two were two white women – one a young woman in her early twenties; the other a woman in her thirties who is the mother of two young children. There were also two black women in the group; both of these women were in their thirties and both had children. In addition, there were two black men present in the group. As soon as the group began to convene, it was immediately apparent that there was a significant problem with regards to when the group could meet. Family commitments, coupled with work placements, conspired to make agreeing on a time to meet extremely difficult. Furthermore, when work was assigned to particular individuals it was not completed on time. A lack of structure was therefore prevalent from the start.

As time went by and the problems with communication within the group continued to grow, it became apparent that the two white women took it upon themselves to act as the leaders of the group, delegating work as if they had been assigned the role of the managers. The younger woman in her early twenties was observed to be especially aggressive and domineering. When confronted she failed to act in a professional manner, which placed further strain upon the dynamics of the group. Furthermore, as the two white women exerted increasing levels of managerial control, it became apparent that they were withholding important information from the rest of the group. This was either because they did not trust the other members of the group to work to their standards or because they wished to take sole responsibility for the project upon completion. Regardless of their true intentions, the lack of co-ordination and communication resulted in a disappointing final presentation that had been undermined on account of a wholesale lack of rehearsal.

The lack of cohesive, coordinated action within the group revealed a great deal about the inherent problems of inter-agency work with children and families. Most obviously, there was a clear and identifiable problem relating to a lack of leadership and direction in the group. Although there were only six members, every participant appeared to have their own specific ‘agenda’, which meant that the overall goal became lost in the resulting confusion of responsibilities. This, according to Michael Gasper, is a key problem in multi-agency working with children and young people where a convergence of interests creates fertile grounds for problems relating to management and leadership (Gasper, 2009:92-110). In such circumstances, it is often the agency or partner that adopts the most rigorously aggressive attitude which ends up assuming a leadership-type role – largely against the best interests of the project in hand. This was certainly the case in the group we observed where the two white women assumed leadership roles although no such premise had been discussed and in spite of the fact that no such policy had been agreed.

In this instance, of course, it is impossible to ignore the spectre of underlying race issues that may have consciously or subconsciously influenced the behaviour of the two white women within the group. Race issues are intrinsically tied to power issues; thus, the white women might have felt the need to assume control of a group dominated by black people. Again, the issue of power and the impact that this has upon inter-personal relationships within a multi-agency setting is an important factor for us to consider. As Damien Fitzgerald and Janet Kay underscore, power is an inexorably important factor that needs to be legislated for when teams come together in an interdisciplinary, multi-professional context. This is especially true during the early consultative stages of group work – the ‘storming stage’ – where “there may be fighting, power struggles, disputes and destructive criticism, which need to be managed effectively so as to minimise the impact upon the setting or the service.” (Fitzgerald and Kay, 2007:92)

The relationships that emerge from the storming stage are subsequently normalised during the ensuing ‘norming’ stage where the team starts to adopt its own identity. If, however, the relationships between the various agencies have not settled down into an egalitarian pattern by the norming stage of development, the power struggles and internal disputes will inevitably affect the ‘performing’ stage of task management. Most notably, the creative process will be stifled and the focus that should be dedicated towards the completion of the task will be diverted towards the power struggles within the group (Cheminais, 2009:38-40). This was certainly the case in the group I worked in where problems in the storming stage were translated into more serious structural problems in the norming stage, both of which ultimately affected the final performing stage of the task. Thus, once more, we need to acknowledge the significant divide between theory and practice in collaborative working with children and families where, as Jayat suggests, “policies can be well intentioned, yet are often poorly co-ordinated and, in practice, under-resourced.” (Jayat, 2009:92)

Furthermore, while acknowledging the problems that multi-agency, collaborative work entails, we also need to consider the way in which the infusion of children into the scenario creates further avenues for a lack of cohesive, co-ordinated action. If, as the evidence suggests, information sharing is negatively influenced by multi-agency, collaborative working with adults, then it stands to reason that there is bound to be much greater scope for withholding information when children and families are integrated into the procedure. If relationships at an agency level are strained then it stands to reason that, as Butler and Roberts attest, that social workers will find it even harder to maintain open and honest relationships with children and their parents in a social work context (Butler and Roberts, 2004:129-130). More importantly, it is clear that there is little time for power struggles and disputes when a child’s welfare is at stake. In the final analysis, this kind of internal wrangling runs contrary to the central tenet of the Every Child Matters and the Working to Safeguard Children campaigns, which look to make sure that the child remains the centre of task-centred, multi-agency focus (Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2010:32).

We should, of course, be careful not to assume that all group dynamics follow the pattern of the group we observed. While evidence suggests that there remains a significant scope for problems of power, communication, authority and direction within multi-agency settings it is also true that, if handled in the appropriate manner, “collaborative practice allows differences in values to surface and, if effectively ‘minded’, to be aired and resolved over time” (Glenny and Roaf, 2008:111) In such circumstances, multi-agency work with children and families can serve to positively influence the health and well being of service users. As a consequence, it is important not to assume that the structural weaknesses of collaboration mean that there are no strengths to the multi-agency process.

Conclusion

Understanding the strengths and the weaknesses of collaborative working between agencies and professional disciplines is dependent upon first understanding the distance to be travelled between the theory of prevention and the practice of collaboration at a grass roots level. Looking to reduce the divide between theory and practice, between the political and ideological framework and the multi-agency, collaborative approach, consequently represents the most critical challenge facing social workers and social policy makers alike. This is especially true as far as children’s services are concerned.

Ultimately, though, when looking to pass a judgement on the relative strengths and weakness of multi-agency working with children and families we need to recall that agencies involve individuals responding to crises in the social sphere. As Beckett attests, “every individual participant in the child protection process, and every profession or agency, necessarily sees things from his, her or its own particular standpoint and has his, her or its own particular ‘axes to grind.’ It is important to bear in mind that no one participant possesses the pure and unadulterated ‘truth.’” (Beckett, 2009:29) Social work is an inherently complex and subjective discipline where there is no right or wrong answer to the multitude of questions arising from the breakdown of interpersonal relationships. Collaborative work should consequently be understood as being inherently fallible. Only by concentrating upon improving the internal group dynamics of multi-agency functioning can the chasm between theory and practice begin to be reduced.

Introduction

The following essay is aimed at discovering whether cohabitation has literally displaced marriage. It will focus on the processes of cohabiting as well as marriage, briefly touching on their historical backgrounds as well as the trends for each of the processes in different countries. Immediately after the war, marriage became practically universal phenomena but apparently, its popularity has declined towards the end of the twentieth century.

Bumpass and Lu (2000) and Teachman, Tedrow and Crowder (2000) explain that patterns of family formation and also dissolution are changing in the United States. She clearly cites an increase in divorce, cohabitation and non marital children which clearly shows a shift from traditional marriage. According to Murphy and Young, (1999), marriage has been in steady decline since the early 70s in the United Kingdom. A McRae (1999) point out that marriage in 1995, which was 322,000, is thought to be the lowest on record since 1926. As the marriage rate dropped, so did the remarriage rate resulting in a steady rise of cohabiting. (Morgan 2000)

Cohabiting according to Marshall (1998) refers to “an arrangement whereby couples who are not legally married live together as husband and wife. In view of the above definition, the term, “not legally married brings in another dimension as to the authenticity of cohabitation. This leads to the idea of common law marriage. There seems to be a huge misconception of the idea of common law marriage, with some authorities and according to Fairbain, (2009) there is no specific legal status for what many refer to as “common law marriage. She also points out that many cohabiting couples are unaware of this fact. On the other hand, marriage, as defined by Horton and Hunt defined marriage as the approved social pattern whereby two or more persons establish a family. Majumdar takes it further by defining marriage as a “socially sanctioned union of male and female or as a secondary institution devised by society to sanction the union and mating of male and female for purposesof establishing a household, entering into sex relations, procreating and providing care for the offspring” There appears to be a clear distinction between marriage and cohabiting, judging from the definitions above which helps me conclude that they are not one and the same thing. The question which I will attempt to answer is whether on is displacing or replacing the other. Shaw and Haskey, (1999) seem to concur with the idea of a clear dichotomy as they point out that there has been a major trend towards a decline in marriage and a rise in cohabitation.

Hasky, (1999) also points out that marriage’s popularity rose throughout the 1950s and the 1960s but notes that towards the end of the century, it fell, giving rise to cohabitation. It appears there was a shift in family formation from the traditional marriage to cohabitation. To further support the prevalence of cohabitation, Bramlett and Mosher, (2002) confirm that the increase of cohabitation is well documented showing that the majority of newly weds have cohabited before their first marriage. Levidon (1990) also argued that consensual unions, (cohabitation) appeared to constitute a new type of union. However, he mentions that the process was transitory, which points to the fact that marriage still was seen to be the end goal. A major development however was that there was more recognition of informal unions and as a social institution. (Haskey 1999)Kiernan, and Estaugh (1993), came up with the idea of “nubile cohabitation” which involved young people living together either as a prelude to or as an alternative to marriage. This was further elaborated on by Bumpass, Sweet and Cherlin (2001); Smock, Huang, Bergstrom and Manning (2005) who cited one of the key reasons why cohabitation was on the rise, as a way of testing out a relationship and determine compatibility. Research however found out that there is a positive correlation between cohabitation and marital dissolution. (DeMaris and Rao 1992, Teachman and Polonko 1990 and Schoen 1992 cited in Smock (2000). They also found out that the link between cohabitation and marriage failure is complex, with other factors like, race, sexual history and ethnicity playing a significant influence. (Phillips and Sweeney 2005).

According to Casper and Sayer (2000) and Brown and Booth (1996), cohabiters, are distinguished by factors like “plans to marry” It is noted that most of the cohabiters eventually plan to marry but not all cohabiters enter into cohabitation with marriage plans. (Manning and Smock 2005). In this way, cohabiters treated their cohabiting as an initial stage of the marriage process which clarifies that they did not see it as an alternative to marriage and likewise, those without marriage plans also viewed cohabitation as part of courtship or single hood. According to Brown (2004), cohabiters with marriage plans view cohabitation as a “semi marriage” and as a matter of fact, they share the same relationship quality as the married couples. Another factor that needs to be looked at is the individuals’ cohabitation history which researchers say in very significant. It was proven that women who cohabited only once with the same partner, being intimate, had the same relationship stability as those who never cohabited, (Teachman 2003). On the contrary, young adults who had multiple cohabiting partners are likely to encounter marital instability, (Teachman and Polonko 1990), (DeMaris and McDonald 1993). It is worth pointing out though that they concede that individuals who had multiple cohabitation before marriage could possibly have enough experience to enable them to make better marriage choices.

Duncan et al (2005) states that “cohabitation is often equated with “do it yourself”…and is no longer restricted to particular social groups. In line with this notion, Manning, Smock and Majumdar (2004) and Phillips and Sweeney (2005) maintain that race, and ethnic differences in cohabitation are likely to have an impact on cohabitation. It was noted that cohabitation had a negative effect on Whites’ marital stability but none on Blacks. This is likely so because of the view each ethnic group has on cohabiting. It was further observed that amongst cohabiting couples, Blacks had weaker marriage plans than Whites. (Manning and Smock 2002) Brown (2000) also argued that Blacks were less likely to go through to the actual marriage even with marriage plans.

Between 1986 and 1990, there was a dramatic rise in cohabitation in Britain. 29% of unmarried females under 60 were cohabiting in 2001 and 2002. This was a three fold increase. As cohabitation rose, children being born to cohabiting couples were estimated to be over 25% by the beginning of the twenty first century. The fall decline of and delay in marriages, have all given rise to the phenomenon of cohabitation. Marriage does not stand out as the only means of commitment for life since some couples choose to cohabit, citing reasons like less commitment and the ease of opting out if things do not work well. (Kieman 2004). According to Duncan et al (2005) the shift from marriage to cohabitation suggests that individuals have found an option which meets their personal needs and has less or no hassles in terminating.

Having looked at the history and trends of the two processes, marriage and cohabitation, this paper will focus on the individualisation theory. According to Beck, (1992) and Giddens (1992), we have entered a ‘late modern’ era of ‘de-traditionalisation’ and ‘individualisation’. Financial stability, education and provision through the welfare state tend to give individuals the latitude to move away from traditional customs. According to Lewis (2001), the pursuit of self fulfilment and individual happiness and freedom has brought up changes on the view of family. While the traditional institutions are still valued, there is less emphasis on marriage vows or private commitments and more emphasis on “self projects”. The ‘project of self’, places an emphasis on individual self-fulfilment and personal development, comes to replace relational, social aims. (Duncan and Smith 2006) The prevalence, historically, of economic and legal inequality, and the belief of there being accepted patterns of behaviour is now getting weaker. (Lewis, 2001, p3) According to Lewis (2001), individualisation is thought to be a formulation of freedom of choice and personal preferences which competes with social structural traditions. However, in the eyes of the traditionalists, this may be viewed as a “counter cultural revolution” Beck (1992( suggests that social structures of gender, class, family and religion are gradually weakening due to individuals becoming more reflexive in making own choices, resulting in the creation of their own biographies. As a result, relationships now focus on individual fulfilment and consensual love, with sexual and emotional equality, substituting formal unions which have been historically prescribed within set gender roles. (Bauman, 2003, Duncan and Smith 2006).

With reference to Majumdar’s definition of marriage, there is particular mention of it being “a union of male and female or as a secondary institution devised by society to sanction the union and mating of male and female for purposesof establishing a household, entering into sex relations, procreating and providing care for the offspring”. However, with reference to individualisation, the prescript nature of the marriage institution is challenged resulting in sexuality being largely freed from institutional, normative and patriarchal control as well as from reproduction. (Duncan and Smith 2006). This notion has led to the acceptance and rise of same sex relationships as confirmed by “The Civil Partnership Act 2004 which was passed and came into effect in December 2005 created civil partnerships which gave same-sex couples who entered into them the same rights and responsibilities of marriage.

From a feminist perspective, Lewis (2001) would argue that historically, marriage has reinforced the limiting of the self development of women. Marriage was seen as a restrictive union and could dictate emotions, feelings and behaviour. Cohabitation, from a different perspective could then be argued to be a form of liberation for women. (Morgan 2000). Marriage was viewed as being restrictive and confining, thereby limiting independence and autonomy. Morgan argues that marriage is an “unencumbered life without binding commitments”. This then presents the idea of cohabitation as a viable alternative which affords people choice to determine their own conditions for the establishment and dissolution of a relationship, Morgan (2000).

The emergence of this contemporary family has been viewed positively and negatively. According to Giddens, (1992) and Weeks, (2001), the greater diversity of lifestyles and the opening up of choice leads to democracy in personal relations, and liberation from oppressive institutions. On the contrary, the work of Zygmunt Bauman (2003) and Francis Fukuyama (1999), stresses that the breakdown of traditional ties leads to a disintegration of families and the moralities once maintained by them; this ‘demoralisation’ leads to individual alienation and social breakdown.” Maslow (1954) maintains that people who engage in self actualisation were concurrently individualistic and altruistic. In order to meet their needs, individuals moving towards self actualisation, became “higher selves” and according to Maslow, this is “healthy selfishness” (p.156). In this process, the healthy self focuses more on the “self” Kilpatrick (1975)

According to the pioneers of the individualisation theory, Becks and Gersheim (2002), society has shifted away from traditional structures where, “people no longer have pre-given life worlds and life trajectories.” (Heath, et al 2007). Generally, individuals are no longer expected by society to follow a set family pattern. According to Beck, (1992) this notion has altered the previous accepted family structures resulting in the dissolution of the social foundations of the nuclear family as more emphasis is placed on the “family of choice” Fukuyama (1999) argues that the institution of marriage has previously been viewed as the bedrock of society but due to the emergence of the family change and freedom of choice, traditional ties have weakened and as a result, there has been family degeneration. Gender roles have also shifted since from the categorization of men as breadwinners and women as house makers. The major change appears to be women emancipation advocated for by the women’s movements and this has altered societal and demographic values. Active participation by women on the labour market has significantly changed the notion of a family unit by bringing in more choice and autonomy women did not have in the past.

The Legal Position of Cohabitation in Britain

Heterosexual cohabitation has been socially and universally accepted as an alternative to marriage in the UK for over two decades but very little has been finalised as regards legal rights of the cohabitants is debatable. (Duncan et al 2001) The issue with cohabiting is that while it can be registered as a Civil marriage, it does not attract the same legal rights and privileges of a marriage. Traditionally, marriage has been regarded as

Bauman, Z (2003) Liquid Love: on the Frailty of Human Bonds. Oxford, Polity.
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London, Sage.
Bumpass, L., & Lu, H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29-41.
Duncan, S. and Smith, D. (2002) ‘Geographies of family formations: spatial differences and gender cultures in Britain’ Transactions Institute of British Geographers, 27, 4, 471-493.
Fukuyama, F. (1999) The Great Disruption: Human nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order, New York, Free Press.
Giddens, A. (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Cambridge, Polity Press.
Horton, P. B. and Hunt, C.L. (1984) Sociology. 6th ed. Singapore: McGraw Hill Book Companies
Kiernan, K. and Estaugh, V. (1993) Cohabitation Extra-marital Childbearing and Social Policy,Joseph Rowntree Foundation/Family Policy Studies Centre.
Lewis, J. (2001) The End of Marriage? Individualism and Intimate Relationships, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Marshall, G, (1998) A Dictionary of Sociology cited on http://www.encyclopedia.com Accessed 20/11/2009.
Weeks, J. (2001) Same Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and Other Life Experiments. London, Routledge.
Teachman, J. Tedrow, L and Crowder. K. 2000. “The Changing Demography of America’s Families.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62:1234-1246.

Cases of domestic violence have increased significantly; the main victims of these violence cases are young children. Most of the children are either directly involved or perhaps witness the violence. Studies carried out by many scholars have revealed shocking findings on the children witnessing domestic violence. The studies described explicitly on the childhood problems related with domestic violence and controlling factors within the child which catalyzes or reduce the problems (Edleson 1).

Children who have witnessed domestic violence in their lives depicted unique and abnormal traits in their spheres of their life. Edleson (1999) grouped the child’s problems into three categories: ‘behavioral and emotional, cognitive functioning and attitudes, and long-term effect’ (1). The studies indicated that the Child’s emotion and behaviors is greatly affected when they are exposed or witness domestic violence. The child becomes antisocial and hostile and fearful to people; this is because the child is traumatized and feels unsecured in the society. Further studies have also revealed that the victims develop weak immune system and therefore becoming more vulnerable to communicable diseases which generally affect their studies (Jaffe 97). In extreme cases, the child suffers depression and nervousness and develops low self esteem, poor sense of feeling or unable to understand and assess other people’s situations. Most shockingly, boys who witness physical violence by use of crude weapons by their parents in their homes portray lower competences and self-control levels and some of them are not able to associate well with their peers. Intriguing findings also disclose that some of these children who witness domestic violence tend to practice the same in their adulthood (Edleson 1).

Many researches done have also revealed that children witnessing violence, perhaps, is the cause of cognitive and emotional difficulties (Golden et al. 21). They asserted that the more a child is exposed to adult violence the more likely that she/he will have depression in older age. Besides, when children reach adolescent age they become more violent and also develop attitudes which support their violent behavior. Edleson (2007), cited research carried out by Bowen which demonstrated that adolescent boys convicted of violence believed that being violent improved their image and reputation in the society (2). However, when both genders were compared it was found that girls were less likely to justify violence than boys in the same situation.

Surprisingly, the domestic violence has a long term effect to the child. Children tend to learn from the violence in their homes and when they become of age and start raising their own children they practice the same behavior (Golden et al. 23). Reports also reveal that women who experienced abuse in their childhood exhibited depression and symptoms of trauma; others had lower self-esteem; while men only exhibited trauma associated symptoms.

Similarly, children are affected differently when exposed to domestic violence; this kind of variation in children is caused by several factors namely: whether the child is directly abused or they witnessed abuse, characteristics of the child, the time span that a child is exposed to violence and the relationship between the child and the parents. The children who were directly abused and also witnessed abuse in there homes were severely affected than those who only witnessed abuse. Edleson (2007) agreed that those children who both witnessed and were abused developed a lot of problem as compared to those who only witnessed abuse (2).

Boys and girls also suffer differently to domestic violence; this can be distinguished from the different behaviors they portray after the abuse. Boys are though to be affected ‘externally’ and as a result, they become more hostile and aggressive. On the other hand girls are affected more internally and therefore, they experience problems such as ‘depression and somantic complains’ (Edleson 3). However, some researchers have disagreed with these findings and they state that some women possess aggressive behaviors especially when they grow old. The time span of exposure to domestic violence has also revealed some interesting results. Children who have been exposed to abuse for a longer period of time have exhibited less adversely affected as compared to those who have been exposed for a short period of time.

Researchers have had conflicting opinions on the contribution of parent-child relationship to the way children react to domestic violence. Some view that, children are more attached to their violent fathers. However, the children express disgust and resentment over their abusive conduct of their fathers. Others are of the opinion that children going through domestic violence are adversely affected if their mother is not mentally stable (Edleson 3). As well, other researches suggested that mother’s mental state do not have any potential impact to the child response to abuse.

However, some people have cast doubts on the accuracy of the findings of many researches done on domestic violence. They expressed dissatisfaction on the methodology used to carry out the research. Especially, the use of information from adults only which may not express the feelings of the children; children should be allowed to state their experiences themselves (Hester 68). There is also the problem of researchers not being able to recognize the difference between the abused children from those who have not directly been victims of abuse but have witnessed activities of abuse. Edleson (2007) suggested that researchers must be keen not to quickly believe that witnessing violence invariably results to severe effects for children (4). In addition, some researchers make use of information from victims still mentally traumatized and not stable enough to provide accurate information. Finally, other over-dependency on single source and also use of correlation should be taken with great care.

In conclusion, domestic violence is a great disaster to the families and society at large. Children bear the largest brunt of this violence. Children who witness domestic violence in their families and those who are directly abused suffer adversely. However, the effects of these two situations to children are not all the same; children who are directly abused suffer a lot more than the children who only witnessed violence. There is also disparity in the way both boys and girls respond to abusive behavior by their parents. Girls are internally affected while the boys are externally affected.

How Current Policies, Theories and Politics Have Influenced Children and Young People

This essay is going to look at the policies and politics about the safeguarding, welfare and wellbeing of children and young people. In particular this essay will look at the quality of social services and statistics of children’s involvement with social services, the Children’s Act 2004 and what this proposes (Kay, 1999). Also the Victoria Climbie Case – and who she was involved with, Every Child Matters – and the approaches taken, the Children’s Commissioner, the Children’s fund and charities such as the NSPCC, Lucy’s Faithfull Foundation and Action for Children will all be considered to understand what support is available to children and young people.

In 2012/13, it is reported that just under 600,000 children had some sort of involvement with social services because of concerns for their welfare. The Department for Education (DFE) is now known to looking at the prospect of raising the quality of services delivered by social care workers. To achieve this, the DFE has sought to enforce the revised statutory guidance which promotes the welfare of children and safeguard them from harm (Morgan N and Timpson E, 2014). The result being that, child protection services not seen to be at the right level by Ofsted will be changed by the DFE with immediate effect. To improve future services the department for education are continuing to reform the system of serious case reviews to demonstrate to social workers, incidence of serious protection issues and this can be improved on. Other continuous improvement measures include the Step Up to Social Work scheme and Frontline Pilot which are now looking at attracting high-quality graduates interested in social work. Private and voluntary organisations are also to be delegated some of the works undertaken by social care workers in an effort to strengthen child protection services, support for looked after children and to give vulnerable children a better chance of staying with their families – rather than going into care through improved early interventions services (Morgan N and Timpson E, 2014).

The fundamental aim of the Children’s Act 2004 is to improve the wellbeing of children and young people through local authorities and agencies while widening the powers of relevant service providers. Safeguarding children and promotion of children’s welfare is therefore the priority of the Children’s Act. Unsurprisingly, the non-statutory Area Child Protection Committees have been replaced with Safeguarding Children Boards which means a robust plan of strategy could be set out for children and young people and could be made and published by children’s services authorities. The Children’s Act also allowed databases to be made that held all children’s and young people’s information whereby professionals involved with children or young people could access and share information (The Stationary Office, 2004).

The Every Child Matters initiative (ECM) was introduced in 2004 after the sad death of Victoria Climbie who was widely known by all the relevant agencies – two housing authorities, four social services departments, two child protection departments linked to the police, an NSPCC ran child unit and two different hospitals. In the case of the latter, Victoria Climbie had been seen with serious injuries (Department for Education, 2003). The ECM aim to promote the wellbeing of children and young people through better coordination between multi-agencies such as schools, local authority, police and other care providers. This approach is deemed productive as organisations can readily team up to share information in order to boost any identified child protection measure (everychildmatters.co.uk, 2014; Knowles, 2009). The establishment of Children’s Commissioner in 2005 has further strengthened the mandate of the ECM initiative as vulnerable people in society now have a voice in parliament and their local areas (everychildmatters.co.uk, 2014).

The efforts of the government is complemented by a plethora of charity and not for profit organisations such as the NSPCC, Lucy’s Faithfull Foundation and Action for Children to name but a few. The NSPCC being the leading children’s charity for example fights to end child abuse by protecting and changing the lives of children for the better and freeing them from harmful situations. The charity will also support parents who are in need of advice in any way (nspcc.org.uk, 2015). Lucy’s Faithfull Foundation on other hand is the only UK-wide child protection charity dedicated solely to reducing the risk of children being sexually abused. They work with all members of families who have suffered from sexual abuse. The charity offer educational programmes, courses and professional support at all levels to victims (lucyfaithfull.org, no date). Finally, Action for Children work with children, young people, parents, carers and run 650 services throughout the UK. This charity is able to provide essential services for both neglected and abused children and young people (actionforchildren.org.uk, 2014).

Overall it seems that the safeguarding of children and young people, welfare and wellbeing is still a constant battle. Just under 600,000 children in 2012/13 had some sort of involvement with social services because of concerns for their welfare while the DFE continues to enforce the revised statutory guidance with rigour. Seemingly, the system in place for child protection and safeguarding is constantly being reviewed – with the Children’s Act 2004 now bringing in a multi-agency approach. All what this means is that, organisations and agencies can pass information about a child or young person to other professionals so that an up to date information is always available (Allen, 1990). In effect, the current institutions are committed to averting future cases as in ‘Victoria Climbie’. The Every Child Matters initiative was introduced through the Children’s Act 2004 and now protect the wellbeing and welfare of children using a multi-agency approach. This is indeed a positive outcome of the Children’s Act 2004 along with the Children’s Commissioner set up in 2005 which has already given children and young people a voice in parliament and in their locality. The Children’s fund 2000 among others have also helped disadvantaged children and young people by improving safeguarding practices.

In conclusion, current policies, theories and politics within the United Kingdom as whole have positively influenced the welfare and wellbeing of children and young people. It seems that more still has to be done where safeguarding children and young people is concerned but the government is heading in the right direction.

Bibliography

Websites

Action for Children (2014) What is Action for Children [Online] Available at: http://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do Accessed: 11/01/15

Department for Education (2003) The Victoria Climbie Inquiry [Online] Available at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6086/2/climbiereport.pdf Accessed: 10/01/15

Every Child Matters (No date) Every Child Matters [Online] Available at: http://www.everychildmatters.co.uk Accessed: 10/01/15

Morgan, N and Timpson, E (2014) Policy supporting social workers to provide help and protection to children [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/supporting-social-workers-to-provide-help-and-protection-to-children Accessed: 24/12/14

NSPCC (2015) About us [Online] Available at: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/about-us/ Accessed: 11/01/15

The Lucy Faithfull Foundation (No date) The Lucy Faithfull Foundation Working to Protect Children [Online] Available at: http://lucyfaithfull.org Accessed: 11/01/15

Books

Allen, N (1990) Making Sense of the Children’s Act. 2^nd edn. Essex: Longman Industry and Public Service
Knowles, G (2009) Ensuring Every Child Matters: A Critical Approach. 1^st edn. London: Sage
Kay, J (1999) A Practical Guide: Protecting Children. 1^st edn. London: Cassell
Stationary Office, The, and HM Government, (2004) Children’s Act 2004: chapter 31, explanatory notes. 1^st edn. The Stationary Office 2004

1

Human trafficking in Nigeria has been one of the greatest problem in Nigerian history. Human trafficking can be traced to the period colonialism when human beings are been traded for mere commodities to the Europeans, to help them in their plantations in their own country. Due to the abolishment of slave trade in Nigeria by 1885-1950, the act of human trafficking was reduced and some few years later they started child trafficking since the children are more vulnerable. Child trafficking is a form of human trafficking that involves the transportation, harbouring, receiving ,recruitment of children in the purpose of exploitation.

The issue of child domestic labour is very complex and problematic. Domestic child labourers are among the most invisible child labourers. The number of children exploited in private households is unknown because of the hidden nature of the work. Many of these children are girls and in many countries domestic service is seen as the only employment option a girl might have. Children exploited in domestic service are paid little or nothing, are malnourished, are very vulnerable to further abuse and exploitation, and do not go to school. However, because child domestic workers are employed within an informal family environment, they cannot be integrated as a professional group within conventional working systems because such integration would presuppose an acceptance of the idea of child domestic labour. At the same time, without legal initiatives, it is difficult to combat child domestic labour. Furthermore, the terms, norms and standards to regulate the employment of children are lacking because children work in a largely invisible domain outside law and the public sphere and their domestic labour cannot be integrated under normal labour laws. Although the final goal of all laws should be the prevention and elimination of child domestic labour, it is acknowledged right at the outset that this is a long term goal. In the interim, there is a need to accept that children do, and will continue, to work until effective alternatives make it unnecessary for them to work. In the meantime, the “best interest” of the child principle together with the notion of the child as a “rights holder” should guide any lawmaking on child domestic work. Law and policy reform can play a powerful constitutive and transformative role in improving and changing the lives of both the girl child and male child domestic worker; however, in envisioning workplace and domestic arrangements it is important to see that sex stereotypes are not reinforced. Just as much as law has the profound power to prevent and regulate domestic labour, it has the power to reinforce it by creating loopholes through which employers can continue to hire child domestic workers. Laws can often spark social change only if they are translated into action. In drafting new laws or revising existing laws, child domestic labour should be seen in the context of historic sex discrimination. There is an apparent tension when laws and policies are blind to the differences between the girl child domestic worker and the male child domestic worker such as the girl child’s weak bargaining position and low status, which increases her vulnerability to coercion by her family and employer.

Child trafficking in Nigeria is something the government has not really put enough effort to ensure that child trafficking is reduced or eradicated this is due to the lapse (corruption) of the whole government system because most of the child traffickers are top government officials and this makes it very difficult to investigate any problem that has to do with child trafficking. According to a research carried out by “United nation children fund (unicef)” say the average age of children been trafficked in Nigeria is around 15years but the age varies, especially with girls and also it says 60-80% of girls in the sex trade outside the country are in Italy (over 700 in Italy while Belgium and Holland is experiencing an upsurge in the number of Nigerian girls. On the average About 10 children pass Nigerian borders daily originating from fostering and extended family system. Children that are been trafficked has so many reasons which include domestic help, prostitution these are especially for girls while boys are used as scavengers, car washing, bus conducting, drug peddling and farming.

Child trafficking has so many effects on both the child and the country. Trafficking of migrant children has unquestionably affected individual children and their communities in various immediate and long term ways. It sometimes endangers the children’s lives. The obvious impacts of child trafficking often mentioned is on deteriorating their education, physical and mental development. Moreover, the trafficked migrant children are disempowered in many ways. They are in the foreign country with foreign customs and foreign language. They are transported and sold or deceived as bonded labour, treated like property, and work under slavery-like conditions. Whenever they feel depressed, or suffering, or face difficulties, or are tortured, commonly they have no one they can turn to as they tend to live in isolated areas. Even if they have a chance to seek help, they often do not know where to go or what to do or whom to ask because they are illegal migrants and are afraid of police. In some circumstances, they may encounter racism from the police, authorities, and general people among whom may be their own employers. A major result of child trafficking can be loss of lives, increasing prevalence of STD’s (sexually transmitted diseases) including HIV/AIDS, increase in violence and crime rate, increased school drop-out, impaired child development, poor national image and massive deportation of Nigerians especially girls. And also, There are diverse reasons why many Nigerian children are vulnerable to trafficking, including widespread poverty, large family size, rapid urbanization with deteriorating public services, low literacy levels and high school-drop out rates

The demand for cheap commercial sex workers in countries of destination strongly contributes to the growth of this phenomenon and the success of this criminal network.

Parents with a large family, often overburdened with the care of too many children, are prone to the traffickers deceit in giving away some of their children to city residents or even strangers promising a better life for them.

Traffickers exploit the trust of people rooted in a widespread, culturally accepted common practice in West Africa of placement and fostering as part of the extended family

safety net. In some instances, desperately poor and uninformed parents willingly co-operate with the traffickers, giving away their children in exchange for a small fee. In the

hands of unscrupulous guardians, these children are increasingly trafficked and exploited for money.

But All hope is not lost as every problem has a solution. The government can still curb this evil practice in order to save children and the good name of the country. Firstly, government should provide free education in every government owned school in the country from the nursery to the secondary level so that parents will have no excuse of giving out their children to strangers in the pretext of taking them to learn new sill in new environment.

Secondly, government should pay workers salaries at the end of each month because they have personal bills to foot; children to cater for and they depend solely on their salaries.

Thirdly, the parliamentary arm of the government should make and amend law that all Nigerian families should not have more than 3 children and any found to go against the law would be punished because one of the causes of child trafficking in Nigeria is the inability of parents to cater for so many children.

Also, government should make laws for children against child abuse and intimidation which should be strictly adhered to.

Last but not the least, government should come to an agreement with leaders of other countries that any Nigerian child suspected to be abused or trafficked should be rescued and the trafficker, punished.

In an effort aimed at battling child trafficking within Nigeria and the sub-region, Nigeria and the government of Benin Republic have signed a memorandum of understanding to co-operate in the area of prevention of child trafficking as well as the repatriation of offenders to countries of origin for prosecution.

Executive Secretary of National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Persons and Other Related Matters(NAPTIP), Mrs. Carol Ndaguba disclosed this at a one-day workshop on Anti Child Trafficking Network Project in Nigeria held at the UN House Abuja.

According to her, Nigeria and the government of Italy, United Kingdom and Spain also have understandings on joint initiative on modalities for prevention of child trafficking and slavery, adding that the Italian government as well as UNICEF have been providing huge financial and capacity building support to the agency in carrying out its task.

On the issue of house-help or domestic servants in the country, NAPTIP Executive Secretary regretted that the phenomenon had been exploited by traffickers to batter, sexually or emotionally traumatize victims, adding that “the so called syndrome must now come to an end.”

She identified the challenges faced by the network project to include expansion of the network from 22 states to 36, sustaining awareness campaign at the state and community levels, and capacity building of the state working groups.

In her remark, Deputy Country Representative of UNICEF, Barbara Reynold said that although the anti-trafficking agency was already doing a lot to put an end to the menace of human trafficking, more needs to be done in the area of conscientisation and increased awareness by a broader section of society.

From the late nineteenth century into the early twenty-first century, U.S. society has become tremendously concerned with the welfare of our nation’s children. Congress and states have passed specific laws recognizing that children hold a right to a healthy upbringing and should be provided with basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, and safety from society’s downfalls. While considerable progress has been achieved in obtaining a framework of commitments protecting the rights and wellbeing of children, the general situation for children remains grave and unacceptable. Victims of injustice and poverty are always pleading to be heard, but none have had more difficulty breaking their silence then children who have fallen victims of sexual abuse.

Through my internship experience at the St. Barnabas Child Advocacy Center and the ideologies discussed within Cohen and Felson’s Routine Activities Theory there is an abundance of evidence to describe how the grooming process unfolds and what to look out for. Children are the most vulnerable victims in society if they won’t speak up for themselves someone has to for them.

The St. Barnabas Child Advocacy Center does just that, formerly known as the Child Protection Program the SBHCAC was established in October of 2000 to address the alarmingly high rates of child abuse in the Bronx. The SBHCAC ‘s mission is primarily focused on improving the quality of life for children ages 0 to 18 who fall victims of physical abuse, sexual abuse, medical neglect, educational neglect or are exposed to domestic violence. The majority of cases are referred to the CAC from the Administration of Children Services and SBH Emergency Department, when there is a suspicion of child maltreatment. Other referrals are also commonly made from pediatrics, mental health centers, schools, foster care agencies, preventive service programs and law enforcement. Once a child has been referred they are provided with support services within a child friendly and culturally sensitive environment. These support services include medical exams and comprehensive psychosocial evaluations. These evaluations take place within a colorful room with spaceship murals on the wall, fuzzy green carpets, and an endless supply of toys with hopes that the child will feel at ease while discussing difficult topics. Depending on how the interview goes the child’s safety is assessed and preventative measures are put in place if necessary.

In 2009 the SBHCAC provided such evaluations, treatments, and follow up visits for 474 children and their families; 63% were under the age of twelve 70% of them being females and 30% males. Moreover of these children 52% were evaluated due to concerns of sexual abuse, 28% were seen for physical abuse, and 20% were exposed to domestic violence and/or neglect. The easiest of the three types of cases to indicate is the physical abuse due to the visible marks and bruises but also because children depending on their age view this excessive hitting as normal punishment allowing them to disclose with ease. Children of sexual abuse on the other hand are not as forthcoming.

Survivors of child sexual abuse often find it difficult to place the blame for their abuse where it really lies which is on the shoulders of the perpetrator. The perpetrator usually twists aspects of the abuse around so that the child is made to feel at fault or somehow complicit in the abuse. For example they might tell the child that the abuse is their fault, mask the abuse as “punishment”, entwining the abuse together with expressions of love and affection or perhaps by manipulating the child to initiate incidents of abuse. A child cannot truly understand the power-play and the control that the perpetrator has in these situations and will often take that self-blame and internalize it. As adults, this internalization of self-blame and responsibility for the abuse can lead to feelings of worthlessness, guilt, depression, self-hatred, inability to self-care and risky behaviors, among many others. Further justifying the importance of understanding the many ways in which an abuser targets their victim and “grooms” them for the sexual abuse. This learning process can act as the first step towards placing the blame where it belongs and releasing it from the shoulders of the victim. (pandoras project)

The grooming process can be defined as the desensitization that predators use on children to prepare and ploy them into accepting sexual abuse over a period of time. Once the predator has gained the child’s trust and confidence, they use everyday behaviors to assess whether or not the child is likely to tell on them. This process includes four procedures sexual attraction to child, justification of interest, grooming of adult community, and grooming of the child.

The sexual attraction to the child and justification are both internal settings within an abuser. The sexual attraction consists of the pre-existing condition in the molester that is present due to a possible array of reasons. While justification, a behavior sometimes referred to as neutralization, is the psychological effort the molester experiences to justify the behavior to himself. Here they break down any emotional barriers that would prevent them from acting upon the sexual attraction to children. It is very important to an abuser to tell to himself and perhaps to others that the child will experience no pain or harm. For instance he will tell himself that this is his way of showing the child love, “I do not want to hurt them.” Many molesters believe they are truly helping the child experience love. Subsequently, there is an importance to deny that the child is a victim, instead the view it to be perceived as the child actively wants to engage in sexual activity. In fact molesters vigorously argue against any societal view that child abuse is wrong which is demonstrated by the creation of NAMBLA the North American Man Boy Love Association that promotes child-adult relationships.

Next they focus their grooming techniques on the adults closest to the child by ingratiating themselves into the adult community surrounding the child whether it is within the immediate family, extended family, church community or an athletic organization. This is primarily done in an attempt to avoid any obstruction that would prevent access to the child. This includes exhibiting behaviors such as overt friendliness or doing constant favors without being asked. The most suitable family targets are impaired families with alcoholism, substance abuse, or single mother households who can use the help or could care less about their child’s wellbeing. According to Anna C. Salter an expert in the field of child sexual maltreatment, many sexual molesters describe adult grooming as integral component of their sexual activity with children and put much of the blame on the parents for having their child targeted. To them the parents are key ingredients in the decision to exploit a child. One offender stated “”Parents are partly to blame if they don’t tell their children about sexual matters-I used it to my advantage by teaching the child myself ” while another stated “Parents shouldn’t be embarrassed to talk about things like this-it’s harder to abuse or trick a child who knows what you’re up to.”( CITE)

Finally the most important technique for the child molester is the grooming of his target, the child. First they look for a child with specific characteristics that are also classified as weaknesses. These weaknesses include needy, quiet, eager to please, compliant, overtly trusting, attention seeking, low self-esteem children who may also be friendless or bullied, simply because they are easy targets. But more than just personality characteristics disabled children ranging from speech issues, autism, to physical constrictions wear a bull’s-eye on their back. This is due to the fact that most of disable children are isolated from the community, dependent on adults for care, and display overall powerlessness.

Once a child has been chosen the next step is desensitizing the child to the touch of the molester through many types of normally innocent activities. These types of activities include tickling games, spinning children in the air, roughhousing, wrestling, piggy back rides, having children sit on their lap, snuggling, physical-picking up or carrying child. This as an opportunity to evaluate the child’s reaction to touch in a slow and attentive manner testing whether the child will tell or will keep a secret. This is a crucial stage for an abuser for it judges whether or not they can continue in the grooming process. This may seem particularly time consuming and only capable by the most competent offenders but the fact is this patience is what allows abuse to go on undetected for so long.

During my time at the St. Barnabas Child Advocacy Center I saw a total of 101 children in a time period of 4 months 55% of these children were seen due to concerns of both kinds of sexual abuse; touching and non-touching. Touching includes fondling of child’s genitals, making a child touch an adult’s sexual organs, and penetration of a child’s vagina or anus no matter how slight with penis, fingers, or any other object that doesn’t have a valid medical purpose. Non-touching includes actions that many people forget to be criminal such a engaging in indecent exposure, exposing child to pornographic material, deliberately exposing a child to live sexual intercourse and finally the act of masturbation in front of a child. Although this may be hard to imagine it’s unfortunate to say that most of the children I have seen have experienced one or more forms of this abuse. But at the same time some of these children a small handful have escaped the harshness of long term abuse by revealing a perpetrators motive at the early stages of an abusers grooming process.

The first name to come to mind is Krystal Carino, a 6 year old girl who was referred to the CAC in mid November. Krystal a very sweet and beautiful first grader came to the office accompanied by her mother and father due to concerns of sexual abuse. The mother explained that while washing Krystal in the bath after a day at her aunts (mother’s sister) she noticed a mark on her chest. This was exceedingly concerning to the mother because Krystal was continually trying to conceal it. Upon the request of the mother the father came in to look at the mark and after questioning the child, she disclosed that her uncle had “kissed” her there. She confirmed the same story while being interviewed by my supervisor and added even more detailed information only solidifying her allegations. The picture of the mark looked like a hickey and when asked what it felt like when he kissed her, she explained “it was weird like he was sucking.” She also stated it had happened while her aunt and cousin went to the laundry mat and that he told her if anyone asked what it was; she was to tell them, her little cousin hit her there. This case is a perfect example of the grooming process. From the start her parents had been groomed. The uncle has been in the family for 12 years presenting himself as a supporting husband and exceptional father. The parents had no reason not to trust him. With Krystal’s parents already groomed his next step was to assess the cooperation of the child. By sending her home with a mark on her chest he was testing to see whether or not she would provide her parents with the story he had made up for her. To this day we will never know if Krystal would have ever told her parents she was sexually assaulted. If her mother hadn’t cared enough to ask about the mark Krystal may have been continually victimized. Luckily for Krystal she has parents who assist her with bath time and really take an interest in her wellbeing. Unfortunately this is not the case for every child in the Bronx; most children live in homes where they are not the first priority. They live in a place stricken by poverty, alcohol, and drug abuse. Consequently children living in such poor conditions suffer, and for those who are experiencing sexual abuse endure hardships to a much greater severity.

Raheem Elliot an intelligent 4 year old boy was brought in early December due to a sexual abuse disclosure he made to his foster mother. Raheem comes from a very contaminated life full of neglect, abuse, drugs and alcohol. His mother Ms. Taylor has 12 children with three different men, ranging in age from 1 ? to age 16. During her pregnancies with most of these children the mother tested positive for cocaine and alcohol and as a result, many of her children are significantly developmentally delayed. Although these children have been at risk even before they were born, the Administration of Children Services only first got involved with the family 2 years ago. At this time the younger boys were displaying sexualized behavior with their siblings at home and at school with their classmates, which led to an investigation. This investigation explained the reason for these behaviors was directly caused by their constant exposure to pornography and live sexual activity. Immediately as a result, all 12 children were removed from the mother’s care and put into a number of foster homes to ensure their safety. It was during this point in time we came to realize that even more sexual abuse was taking place outside the home.

According to Raheem’s newly assigned foster mother, Gloria, Raheem has been taking stuffed animals and continually digitally penetrating them in their anus regions. When Gloria questioned Raheem asking “Why are you doing that” instead of answering I saw my brother do it as would be expected in the Elliot home; Raheem responded “Well I do it to the animals because Goody does it me.” This was very alarming because Goody is an adult neighbor who lives across the street and according to mom “he (Goody) has grown close with Raheem and his brother Marcus, they spend a lot of time together, he would never do that.” Instantly my supervisor attempted to interview Raheem but after just being placed in a new foster home and being in another new place my supervisor decided to let him play around the office, get familiar, and make a new appointment. Two weeks later Raheem and his foster mom were back to try this interview one more time, but Raheem would not sit still. All he would say about Goody was “he is a very bad man that lives behind the door across from his door.” Fortunately for the purpose of getting this man arrested, the foster mother revealed new information Raheem had confided in her. According to Gloria, Raheem constantly has nightmares and when she comes in to check on him each time he confesses different pieces of information. The 4 year old stated that Goody digitally penetrates them and touches his penis very fast and “pees” on their faces. Also when they do not do what he wants he cuts them with knifes and burns them with cigarettes which was beyond evident with the number of scars he had all over his body. In fact this behavior is so far embedded in Raheem’s mind that when Gloria tries to pay the clerk at the grocery store Raheem will ask, “Why are you paying?” Because on countless occasions Goody brings the boys to the store wearing back packs so he can stuff them with items and have them steal it. For Goody this family was targeted due to its lack of structure, impaired supervision, and the overall chaotic nature of the home. The single mother was easily groomed because she cares little about her children and a free babysitter is exactly what she is looking for. The child was also easily groomed because of the constant fear of being stabbed or burned, and the idea that even if I tell mom she won’t believe me discourages any disclosures. Raheem was abused for a year, and in 4 weeks with a foster mother who cared and nurtured him he finally broke his silence.

The common denominator of both of these cases leading to a disclosure was the relationship between the legal guardian and the child. For Krystal her mother and father refused to ignore their child’s unusual behavior over a freshly made mark; and for Raheem coming from such a overcrowded home without any parental supervision, having a “mom” one on one to listen to him provided him an opportunity to tell someone of his abuse. Although it is very important for parents to understand the way in which a predator targets and grooms a child. It is also an utmost priority for guardians to provide children with a strong and open relationship with their children. One that is full of communication. Children need someone to talk to and as a parent it should be a major concern to know what’s going on in your child’s life. For children 85% of child victims know their offender, with almost half of the offenders being a family member. This makes it so hard from them to tell.

Unfortunately in reality some children of the Bronx will never have relationships like this with their parents, so who can they tell? After working here for 4 months I put a lot of responsibilities on the board of education. For many children this is their home away from home. In my opinion teachers, school psychologist, guidance counselors etc. should be thoroughly trained in how to look out for abuse. In addition even though this is a sensitive topic for everyone I believe teachers should have the ability to teach children the appropriate names of their private parts, educate children about the difference between good touches and bad touches, and finally what constitutes a good secret and bad secret. In the past and up until now schools are constantly focused on “stranger danger”, but for almost all children of sexual abuse strangers are the least of their worries.

The majority of children never report the abuse, and this is often because they are afraid of their parent’s reactions, they are afraid they will get in trouble, or simply because they just don’t know how to tell. The child who allows these fears to keep them from telling will end up experiencing severe emotional and physical consequences, both in childhood and later on. Children from a very young age can be taught skills that lower there vulnerability

Rape: Child Sexual Abuse
Deirdre F Smith

Social Work and Criminal Justice

A violent crime is a crime in which an offender uses or threatens force upon a victim. This entails both crimes in which the violent act is the objective, such as murder, as well as crimes in which violence is the means to an end, such as robbery. Violent crimes may, or may not, be committed with weapons. Depending on the jurisdiction, violent crimes may vary from homicide to harassment. (Violent Crime)

Rape falls into the category as a violent crime. Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration initiated against one or more individuals without the consent of those individuals. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent. The term rape is sometimes used interchangeably with the term sexual assault. (Rape)

It is commonly believed that rape only happens to women and children, but this is false because it can also happen to men. Rape is not about sex, but about power. One out of every six American womenhas been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime. 17.7 million American womenhave been victims of attempted or completed rape. The Average number of rapes that occur annually in the United States is 89,000. Men make up 3% of the total rapes. Children under the age of 12 make up 15%.There is still 60% of rapes never reported and 95% of college rapes are also never reported. There are 47% of rapes that have occurred while both the victim and perpetrator had both been drinking. Victims of rape are more likely to suffer from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, abuse alcohol and/or drugs, and contemplate suicide. (Who are the Victims?)

The rape of a child is referred to as child sexual abuse. Child sexual abuse is a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation. Forms of child sexual abuse include asking or pressuring a child to engage in sexual activities (regardless of the outcome), indecent exposure(of the genitals, female nipples, etc.) to a child with intent to gratify their own sexual desires or to intimidate or groom the child, physical sexual contact with a child, or using a child to produce child pornography. The American Psychiatric Association states that “children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults”, and condemns any such action by an adult: “An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior.”

Rapes can occur in either the perpetrators or victims’ home, in a vehicle, outdoors, in a bar, or anywhere. Sometimes it can occur in the home that both the victim and perpetrator share, because most people are raped by someone they know including a spouse. Since rape or sexual assault is under reported only about 3% of rapist will ever spend a day in jail. (Rape Statistics, 2014)

Under federal law, the punishment for rape can range from a fine to life imprisonment. The severity of the punishment is based on the use of violence, the age of the victim, and whether drugs or intoxicants were used to override consent. If the perpetrator is a repeat offender the law prescribes automatically doubling the maximum sentence. A person who has committed such offenses gains the label as a sex offender. Once you are given that title you will forever carry that label. Even upon release of incarceration, one still must register as a sex offender with local law enforcement and follow specific guidelines which includes, informing law enforcement if you move and update any information. You will be placed in a public database where your status is automatically known.

Children who have been sexually abused may feel guilty, ashamed, or confused so, they may not tell anyone. There are symptoms that you can look for they may tell you that a child is being sexually abused. The symptoms include withdrawal from friends or activities, may become aggressive, changes in school behavior and attendance, depressed, and attempt to runway or commit suicide. There can also be physical signs of sexual abuse such as, Sexual behavior or knowledge that’s inappropriate for the child’s age, pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), trouble walking or sitting, or sexually abusing other children. (Child Abuse Symptoms)

Children who have been abused sexually are 25% more likely to experience teen pregnancy. The effects of child abuse are also that they begin drug and/or alcohol use, commit violent crimes, become depressed, and have low self-esteem. Some may actually become abusers themselves. They develop psychiatric disorders that carry on into their adulthood. Some will become involve in abusive relationship and some become promiscuous. As adults they may even take jobs as prostitutes. (Rape Statistics, 2014)

As a social worker, working with sexually abused children you may experience conflicts between personal values and professional values. There are certain standard you must adhere to according to the NASW when dealing with adolescence. Standards for the Practice of Social Work with Adolescents: Standard 1. Social workers shall demonstrate knowledge and understanding of adolescent development. Standard 2. Social workers shall demonstrate an understanding of and ability to assess the needs of adolescents; access social institutions, organizations, and resources within a community that provide services for adolescents and their families; and advocate for the development of needed resources. Standard 3. Social workers shall demonstrate knowledge and understanding of family dynamics. Standard 4. Social workers shall demonstrate acceptance of and contribute to the development and maintenance of culturally competent service delivery. Standard 5. Social workers shall possess or have access to specialized knowledge of the legal, regulatory, and administrative requirements and resources for youths and their families. Standard 6. Social workers shall strive to empower adolescents. Standard 7. Social workers shall advocate for an understanding of the needs of adolescents and for resources and cooperation among professionals and agencies to meet those needs. Standard 8. Social workers shall participate in multidisciplinary case consultation across agencies that provide services to adolescents and their families. Standard 9. Social workers shall maintain confidentiality in their relationship with youths and of the information obtained within that relationship. Standard 10. Social workers shall assume an active role in contributing to the improvement and quality of the work environment, agency policies and practices with clients, and their own professional development. (NASW Standards for the Practice of Social Work with Adolescents, 1993)

Treatment of child sexual abuse is a complex process. Orchestration of treatment in the child’s best interest is a genuine challenge. Moreover, it is often difficult to know how to proceed because there are so few outcome studies of treatment effectiveness. When working with children it may be difficult because of lack of support from the family. Establishing trust with the child may be difficult. One of the reasons sexual abuse treatment is such a challenge is that it occurs in a larger context of intervention. Therefore, coordination is of utmost importance and ideally is provided by a multidisciplinary team. Treatment issues are then handled by the team as part of overall intervention. The following issues are the most important of those the team should consider at this stage of intervention: separation of the child and/or the offender from the family, the role of the juvenile court, the role of the criminal court, the treatment plan for the family, visitation, and family reunification. (Child Welfare Information Gateway)

Case management decisions are often provisional; that is, they are based on what information about the family members and their functioning is available when decisions are made. Treatment is often a diagnostic process. The positive or negative responses of family members to treatment determine future case decisions. Outcomes of court proceedings can impinge upon and alter case management decisions and treatment. (Child Welfare Information Gateway)

Before you can give a child a treatment plan you have to consider should the child remain a part of the family, do the courts have a role in the case, and is there a question of visitation? This is actually where the conflict of person and professional values arises. You may feel that if the child was sexually abused at home, they should never be allowed to return. Professionally, reunification with the family is the goal if at all possible. The task of the therapist is to make victims feel whole and good about themselves again. Work, mentioned above, that addresses the issue of self-blame is helpful. However, so are interventions that help children view themselves as more than merely victims of sexual abuse. Normalizing and ego-enhancing activities, such as doing well in school, participating in sports, getting involved in scouts, or helping a younger victim, can be very important in victim recovery. (Child Welfare Information Gateway)

Treatment options include group therapy, individual treatment, and family therapy. Group therapy is generally regarded as the treatment of choice for sexual abuse. However, usually groups are offered concurrent with other treatment modalities, and some clients may need individual treatment before they are ready for group therapy. Individual treatmentis appropriate for victim, offender, and mother of victim (as well as for siblings of victims and survivors). As a rule, an initial function and a major one for individual treatment is alliance building. All parties have to learn to trust the therapist and come to believe that change is possible and desirable. The members of this triad may have different levels of commitment to therapy, with the victim usually the most invested and the offender the least. Family therapyis the culmination of the treatment process and is usually not undertaken until there has been a determination that reunification is in the victim’s best interest. (Child Welfare Information Gateway)

The reason I chose to this topic is not because a family member or a friend sexually abused me, but at the age of 17 I was raped by seven guys who I did not know. I did not say anything after it occurred because I felt like it was my fault. I was somewhere I shouldn’t have been and my parents didn’t know. In a way I thought of it as punishment for being disobedient. Afterwards, I had become angry, aggressive, and rebellious. I would run away from home because I caused all types of problems there. At that time I was in college, but of course I quit going. I began cutting myself and I showed other emotions other than anger.

Finally, after trips to the Detention Center my mother finally took me to St. Dominic Mental Health. My therapist tried to talk to me, but of course I refused to talk. He told my mother I had sociopathic symptoms, because I showed no emotions and would not open up. After those attempts I was still acting out. She finally took me to a place called Our House Shelter. It was a runaway shelter. There I had group therapy and individual therapy. That’s where I found my help. It was a social worker named Ms. Tara who reached me.

I have a great mother because she knew something was wrong with me and tried everything she could to help me. She could’ve given up on me but she didn’t. She still doesn’t know what happened to me and chose not to tell her. She was just happy to have her daughter back to normal.

I have seen a couple of the guys throughout the time, but I have heard most of them are in jail or dead. Do I regret never telling? Yes, because I could have stopped someone from experiencing what I did. Because of that situation and the fact that I’m here has made me stronger.

References

Child Abuse Symptoms. (n.d.). Retrieved November 2014, from Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/child-abuse/basics/symptoms/CON-20033789

Child Welfare Information Gateway . (n.d.). Retrieved November 2014, from U.S. Department of Human & Health Services: https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/sexabuse/sexabusef.cfm

NASW Standards for the Practice of Social Work with Adolescents. (1993). Retrieved November 25014, from National Association of Social Work: http://socialworkers.org/practice/standards/sw_adolescents.asp

Rape. (n.d.). Retrieved November 2014, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

Rape Statistics. (2014, July 8). Retrieved November 2014, from http://www.statisticbrain.com/rape-statistics/

Violent Crime. (n.d.). Retrieved November 2014, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime

Who are the Victims? (n.d.). Retrieved November 2014, from RAINN: https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

The Child’s Best Interest

“I did everything they asked me” (Bergner, 2006). Abiding by the rules did not by any means help Marie get her children back from state custody. Children are one of the most vulnerable populations so when they are put in situations that can harm them, the state will get involved. The child welfare system bases decisions on what’s in favor of the child’s best interest. In Marie’s case, her mother wasn’t capable of helping to care for the children while she recovered so the state had to take control. She was too unfit to be their “mother”. The child welfare system is a structured way of dealing with this vulnerable population through the idea of parens patriae and the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 that relates to termination of parental rights (TPR). When the well-being of children is overlooked, the policies that encompass the child welfare system will be enforced.

“Parens patriae is the doctrine that empowers government institutions to venture into the intimate realm of child-rearing and effectively deputizes social workers to knock on the doors of family homes and gain entry” (Bergner, 2006). Under this doctrine, any state worker had the right to enter Marie’s home at any time if they had probable cause to investigate a situation involving children. This government policy came into effect because it literally translates to “parent of the country” (Bergner, 2006). Parens patriae didn’t start off as what it means in today’s society. Back in the days, children were seen in a different light. They were seen as laborers and not as innocent, helpless individuals who need a voice when faced with unwanted obstacles (Hatcher, 2012, p. 163). The idea that the state is the guardian of these helpless children where state officials, more specifically social workers could assume the roles that a guardian possesses was the real motivation. The societal value behind this policy was that the states were finally recognizing that children had rights that needed to be protected and served (Hatcher, 2012, p.165). In Marie’s case, parens patriae responded to her needs. The social workers did everything in their power to help her get her children back, but it just wasn’t enough. The parens patriae doctrine acknowledging children with rights that need to be tended to paved way for the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 became a policy that plays an important role in the child welfare system because it allows for children to get out of the foster care system and achieve “permanent placement, whether through reunification or adoption” (Halloran, 2014, p. 53). The act “links federal money to states’ efforts to move children toward adoption after they have been in temporary care for 15 of any 22 months” (Bergner, 2006). The societal value that led to this policy was catering to the children’s well-being. Children are seen as a worthy category that needs the help they can get when put in situations that are at no fault of their own. This act was created to prevent children from lingering in foster care (Halloran, 2014, p.57) until they were the legal age of 18 where they would technically be able to fend for themselves as adults. Termination of parental is a component to the child welfare system that basically ends legal rights of biological parents to children they have lost to the system. “Termination criteria lie along a continuous scale where a court’s determination of the conditions that justify the termination of parental rights is in degrees of objectivity and subjectivity” (Halloran, 2014, p. 61). In other words, parents go through an evaluation to determine if they are fit or unfit before termination of parental rights occurs. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 led way to the termination of parental rights.

The policies of parens patriae, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 and termination of parental are all valid policies that respond to the needs of the recipients if the outcomes are in favor of the parents. When things are good and parents prove that they can take care of their children, the policies have no faults to them. The minute the outcomes are not in favor of the parents, the policies do not tend to the needs of the recipients. Overall, there are many pros and cons to these policies. To say that these policies are followed thoroughly and fairly is an understatement. Decisions regarding whether these policies are followed are examined case by case. Each case has their own unique circumstances which in turn will have different results.

Policies are put into place so that the results yield the best outcomes. In the child welfare system the main goal is to tend to what is in favor of the child’s interest. It’s the reoccurring theme behind the child welfare system. When you have a case like Marie, where she is doing everything in her power to become this fit mother the policies are not in the best interest for the recipient. Separating mother and child is not a goal in the policies but that is what happened in her case. To fully understand where judgments and decisions are made, one must take into perspective the social control that is behind the social welfare system. It’s all about constructing policies based on what is right and what is wrong. What’s right to one person may not be right to another and what’s wrong to one person can be perceived as not wrong to another. No matter what, government intervention in the child welfare system is something that will always be a part of the system.

References

Bergner,D. (2006, July 23). The Case of Marie and Her Sons – New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/magazine/23welfare.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Halloran,J.T. (2014). Families First: Reframing Parental Rights as Familial Rights in Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings. U.C. Davis Journal of Juvenile Law and Policy, 18(1), 51-93. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org.ezproxy.lib.uwm.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ucdajujlp18&div=6&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults&terms=18|U.C.|Davis|J.|Juv.|L.|Pol

Hatcher,D.L. (2012). Purpose vs. Power: Parens Patriae and Agency Self-Interest. New Mexico Law Review, 42(1), 159-202. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org.ezproxy.lib.uwm.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/nmlr42&div=9&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults&terms=parens|patriae|importance&type=matchall

This assignment gives a general insight to my job role and responsibilities including achievements and targets that I have gained in my post so far regarding child safeguarding and continues working towards within the pre-school that I am currently employed by and represent.

Showing awareness and understanding of working together with other outside organisations, services and sources that can connect daily to the children and pre-school environment. Demonstrate my knowledge and the importance of safeguarding following government definitions and guidelines that all professionals working with children, young people and families adhere to so that child safety is the priority achieved.

As a pre-school worker my role is to nurture, teach and care for children aged 3-5 years in a pre-school setting either individually or in a group. My job description is to ensure children are safe and well cared for so they develop and are stimulated by age-appropriate activities in a safe suitable environment. Although childcare workers are not teachers we may encourage and teach basic skills to children such as social and interaction skills such as taking turns and sharing toys and hygiene procedures like flushing the toilet and then washing hands.

In the pre-school we are organised to work on the whole as a team with each team member having a designated role for example one named person for first aid, or health and safety, or child safeguarding. Although all staff are required to have Criminal Record Bureau checks, qualifications and regular updated training in all of these areas of child care to produce good quality daily knowledgeable practice in the pre-school setting.

Pre-school introduces children into learning for preparation starting school, many outside agencies integrates with/along side pre-school environments such as army welfare services, health services, local police officers, local primary schools, ofsted, speech therapists this is just a few.

To achieve the best out of my role as pre-school worker it is important that I am managed well and feel supported individually and within my team, and resources are available to attend regular training and courses. Enabling me to keep up to date with policies, procedures and qualifications relevant and required to work with children. Training such as safeguarding children gains and reinforces the necessary skills and knowledge to identify, respond to signs and symptoms of children experiencing abuse at the same time being alert and reacting correctly and efficiently to all possible concerns and dangers.

1

In a talk by T G during a safeguarding children training course it was stated that the government provides definitions to guide all professionals working with children young people and their families to identify when there are serious causes for concerns about children these are:

Different Brief Definition One Example of
Abuse Categories Indicator

Physical causing harm also includes unexplained or

Fabricating symptoms of or inconsistent

Deliberately induces illness in a child explanation of

Injuries or

Burns

Emotional constant emotional maltreatment low self-esteem

Of child such as to cause severe and

Persistent adverse effects on emotional

Development

Neglect persistent failure to meet a child’s basic lack of care –

Needs physically and/or psychologically inadequate

Clothing,

Heating, light

Or food

Sexual forcing, enticing, involving a child to unusual

Participate in sexual activities including difficulty

Viewing imagery also encouraging in walking

Inappropriate sexual behaviour from a or sitting

Child

Wiltshire Local Safeguarding Children Board

Updated May 2008 TG

“The government guidelines, working together to safeguard children (1999),

Divide child abuse into four neat categories – sexual, physical, and emotional

And neglectful- but in reality many of this overlap. With any form of abuse

There will be emotional abuse too, although this may occur on its own.”

As cited The Guardian 7 October 2008

2

“Sharing information is for the purpose of safeguarding and

Promoting the welfare of children, sharing information amongst

Practitioners working with children and families are essential. In

Many cases it is only when information from a range of sources

Is put together that a child can be seen to be in need or at risk

Of harm. A failure to pass on information that might prevent a

Tragedy could expose you to criticism.”

As cited The Guardian 13 November 2008

Effective practice uses awareness and fully understands the importance of sharing concerns and information. We cannot afford to ignore signs at a risk of appearing foolish or alarmist, daily my role can identify families with needs that effect a child’s well being, armed forces children are the majority at the pre-school, the issues that arise from parent/carer who can be isolated from family and friends by military postings, soldier spouses are often absent due to active duties or training. So a parent/carer could be experiencing difficulties such as financial worries, lack of support, worried about the well being of spouse on active duty for instance in Afghanistan, these issues interconnects amongst the whole family unit. So having the knowledge you are better equipped to listen hard and observe carefully the behaviours between child and parent/carer and alert to recognise signs and symptoms an example could range from inadequate parenting to inappropriate clothing for season of the year, could show problems and a need for help, there are services that can offer support and assist the parents ability to care better for children before a situation gets out of hand but a lot of parent/carers feel ashamed, embarrassed, inhibited or simply just don’t know how to access this help.

“Instead of intervening early and effectively, struggling local authorities

Wait until children are in crisis, then act reluctantly, half-heartedly

And ineffectively, it’s not their fault. The funding systems are designed

In such away.”

As cited The Guardian 4 September 2009

In a talk on safeguarding children 6 November 2009 it was explained and stated

“If any support agencies were contacted directly by the family or referred by

Their family GP at the request of the family for support, the agencies

Assess the needs of the child by means of a Common Assessment

Framework (CAF) and this ensures that everyone involved such as

Pre-school worker, health visitor, police officer, social workers use

This framework to work together and support the child and that child

Receives the right support at an early stage before their needs increases.”

3

Daily I can work closely with individual children, so there is opportunity and time to develop a relationship of trust giving a child an opening to talk, some children may not tell you, you might guess even been led by them to read between the lines. This is where knowledge and procedures are of key importance, so that you listen to the child and avoid any leading questions, being careful not to offend, intimidate the child or the situation as this could be the first and last attempt for a child needing to trust someone to disclose what may be happening to them in the hope of help, I would then

Reassure the child the best I could and then explain as simply as I can so the child understands that the things said would need to be passed on to pre-schools supervisor as they will know best what to do. If a disclosure was made, I would then need to follow the pre-school settings policies and procedures we have in place