https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2023/11/24/we-must-stop-blaming-mothers-in-child-protection-social-work/'We must stop blaming mothers in child protection social work?
A social work trainer says practitioners too often make mothers solely responsible for their children's safety, even when they are domestic abuse victims, undermining the effectiveness of interventions with families
November 24, 2023 in Children
by Vicki Shevlin
When I started in social work, I thought I would be prepared to manage the misogyny embedded in practice. But when it came to working with mothers who were victims of domestic abuse, I found myself developing habits that amounted to poor practice. Without realising it, influenced by others on my team, I began focusing all my initial contact on mothers. I was arranging home visits based on when they were at home with their children, relying on them to share information and give consent, and, worst, holding them accountable for implementing the ?safety? in safety plans. My practice began to emulate what is known as ?mother blaming?; a phrase commonly used in literature to describe the discourse of ?disproportionate responsibilisation of women for the protection of children and for their partners? abuse? (Wild, 2022).
What is ?mother blaming??
Mother blaming occurs when practitioners perpetuate the ideology that mothers are primarily responsible for the safety, wellbeing and care of children (Strega et al, 2008), even when they themselves are victims. This may look like inviting mothers to meetings, but not following up when fathers do not attend. Sometimes, it may be the writing of safety plans that heavily rely on mothers to take certain actions to ?provide safety?, with fathers omitted completely such as a reliance on mothers to uphold recommended contact arrangements. As a new social worker then, certain habits became embedded. I was writing sentences talking about ?mothers? capacity to protect? and not taking steps to look into what fathers were doing. I look back on supervisions where I talked about ?hidden? or ?unseen? men but I now know that, without action, my use of the phrases simply reinforced the problem. It wasn?t enough for me to recognise that a male perpetrator was missing from my intervention I needed to do something about it. On one occasion, a mother told me she had felt I was blaming her, rather than supporting her. She didn?t trust that I would genuinely help her.
The impact of mother blaming
If social workers hold a narrow viewpoint that mothers are solely to blame for the behaviour and actions of perpetrators, it reduces the likelihood of them building strong and meaningful relationships with parents. This affects the effectiveness of interventions with children and families. When blame is unfairly placed on mothers, it also disproportionately affects those who are part of the global majority, living in poverty or systematically marginalised. There is also a risk of social workers causing harm through secondary victimisation, where victims suffer further harm because of the behaviour and attitudes of professionals. As social workers, we have to question the ideologies that we are modelling to children and young people in the way we treat their family members.
?You can centre children and hold empathy for mothers?
The Children Act 1989 says the welfare and safety of children is paramount. Many practitioners feel that they cannot prioritise the safety of children and at the same time acknowledge mothers as victims of domestic abuse. This is often attributed to legislation and policy focusing solely on children?s safety and the lack of services available to victims. As a result, mothers are repeatedly held accountable for the actions of perpetrators. It is important that, as social workers, we understand the limitations of binary thinking. You can centre children and hold empathy for mothers. You can assess and support; care for families in a problematic system and stay conscious of the risks of mother blaming. You don?t have to choose one or the other.
What needs to change
This starts with social work leaders who are committed to cultural change. Managers should be committed to changing habits, challenging language and, ultimately, encouraging their teams to think critically about systemic bias, particularly around domestic abuse. Changing entrenched practice approaches is not simple. Many of us don?t want to admit that it is often easier to work with a parent who answers the phone, turns up to meetings or is more likely to be at home when we visit. When effort is not put into trying to contact perpetrators, it is a choice, albeit one exacerbated by high caseloads, emotional stress and organisational pressure. Practitioners have to be supported in this.
Abandoning problematic language
Social workers are often required to be lead professionals in cases of domestic abuse. When you chair meetings, you should talk about the tendency of professionals to attribute blame to mothers whilst ignoring fathers. This can set the tone for further conversations, planning and interventions that take a systemic approach. Local authorities can also make a commitment to stop using unhelpful terminology such as ?mother?s failure to protect? or ?father not engaging?. It?s problematic and perpetuates harmful tropes. Social workers need to be supported to include alternative approaches in their assessments. This includes training specific to perpetrator behavior as well as mother and child relationships. When you understand a child?s world and lived experience, you can gain insight into complex relationships that can be harmed when we make reductive assumptions.
References
Strega, S, Fleet, C, Brown, L, Dominelli, L, Callahan, M, Walmsley, C (2008) ?Connecting father absence and mother blame in child welfare policies and practice? Children and Youth Services Review 30(7)
Wild, J (2022) ?Gendered Discourses of Responsibility and Domestic Abuse Victim-Blame in the English Children?s Social Care System? Journal of Family Violence 38(3)
