Embedding ethical frameworks into child protection practice. Prof Bob Lonne Queensland University of technology Brisbane Australia Prof Brid Featherstone, The Open University, Milton Keynes, England Prof Mel Gray University of Newcastle, Newcastle , Australia. Prof Maria Harries, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.

1. Embedding ethical frameworks
into child protection practice
Prof Bob Lonne1, Prof Brid Featherstone2, Prof Mel Gray3 & Prof Maria Harries4
1
Contact b.lonne@qut.edu.au
1Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia; 2 The Open University, Milton Keynes, England; 3
University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia; 4 University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia,
Australia.
1

2. ETHICS
“Ethics is concerned with the conditions for human well-being or
flourishing, the conditions which enable people to achieve
fulfilment or happiness through the development of their
physical, mental and social potential.”
Aristotle
2

3. • Ethics is NOT
• Negative codes of conduct
• Personal feelings
• Private intuition
• Just for religious people
• Endless insoluble dilemmas
• Ethics IS about
• Positive conditions for human
wellbeing
• Universal principles
• Power sharing
• Moral community
• Practical problem solving
• An educational process
WHAT IS ETHICS?
3

4. SYSTEMS UNDER PRESSURE
• Highly politicised context of care and protection
of children worldwide – neoliberal policy drives
• Inequality is hidden yet disadvantaged, troubled families and
communities are in the spotlight – racial minority / socio-economic /
cultural / mental ill health etc.
• Multi-facetted unintended outcomes
• Endless systemic reviews
4

5. A HEGEMONIC MODEL
• A powerful discourse with institutional legitimacy
• Child rescue
• Focused on risk & safety rather than relational practice
• Co-opts and distorts language concepts such as well-being, prevention and
early intervention
• Professional power ‘over’ rather than ‘with’
5

6. WHAT SERVICE USERS SAY
Service users generally:
• Feel belittled, disempowered, not listened to, judged!
• Place emphasis on their relationship with workers, which flows from
seeing service users from a ‘social perspective’ & their strengths,
abilities & lives as a whole (Beresford, 2014)
• Value practical & emotional support
• ‘The quality of the helping alliance … remains the key transforming
variable’ (Buckley et al., 2011).
. 6

7. AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
7

8. PRACTICE OCCURS WITHIN A
CONTEXT OF VULNERABILITY
• Vulnerable Children
• Vulnerable Families
• Vulnerable Communities
Fundamental to understanding the ethical challenges facing those working in
child protection and family welfare is an appreciation of client vulnerability
and the inequality of power relationships.
“Poverty, unemployment, ethnic minority status, mental illness, ill health, alcohol and drug addictions,
disability, and cultural dislocation define some of the major demographics for those who come under the
‘gaze’ of child protection services.”
Lonne, B., Harries, M., Featherstone, B., & Gray, M. (forthcoming). Working ethically in child protection. London: Taylor & Francis.
8

9. THE POWER THESIS
Too little attention paid to:
• The explicit power differentials between ‘at-risk’ cohorts and the bureaucracies legislated to
intervene in their lives when a child’s safety is in question.
• The potency of statutory powers to enter the ‘sacred’ domain of families, investigate them
and remove children is weighty.
Recognising these power differentials is an essential first step in:
• Ensuring children’s well-being and safety AND
• Not further threatening or compounding the vulnerability of their families and communities.
9

10. CENTRALITY OF RELATIONSHIP
• The individual and family are embedded in networks of social relationships
(the web of care).
• Relationships and community networks ‒ ‘nodes of connection’ ‒ are
central to good outcomes for children and families.
• Many of our families have lost connections and we threaten to exacerbate
this further.
• Care, respect, and relationship are pivotal to engagement and decision-
making - Relationship-based practice .
“A relational approach conceptualises [many] struggles as coping difficulties. It does not seek to individualise
problems and blame parents for not being able to look after their children.”
Lonne, B., Harries, M., Featherstone, B., & Gray, M. (forthcoming). Working ethically in child protection. London:
Taylor & Francis.
10

11. ORGANISATIONAL PREREQUISITES
• Embedding ethical practice at every level:
• Explicit auspice and mission
• A strategic focus
• Leadership modelling
• Relationship-based practice in the workplace
• Sustaining practitioners in their ethical decision making
11

12. FUNDAMENTAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
Principle of Justice
• To be even-handed and fair to all, not discriminating against certain people (equitable &
responsible power-sharing)
Principle of Respect for Persons
• To respect the dignity and rights of others & to empower them (mutual support and
empowerment)
Principle of Beneficence / Duty of Care
• To do good and not harm to others, to exercise a duty of care to the weak (using one’s power
to protect not harm others)
12

13. TENSIONS BETWEEN THE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
RESPECT
FOR
PERSONS
JUSTICE
BENEFICENCE /
DUTY
13

14. DECIDE FRAMEWORK
• Define the problem: as comprehensively as possible
• Ethical review: what are the ethical obligations to each
stakeholder?
• Consider options: what are the possible courses of action
• Investigate outcomes: what are the possible/likely
outcomes of each course of action
• Decide on action: what is the ‘right’ thing to do?
• Evaluate results: what happened? Accumulate evidence.
Lonne, B., Harries, M., Featherstone, B., & Gray, M. (forthcoming). Working ethically in child protection.
London: Taylor & Francis.
14

15. Contact: b.lonne@qut.edu.au
References following
Thank you for your
appreciative
attention
The End
15

16. References
Beresford, P. (2014). What service users want from social workers. Community Care, 1‒8. Retrieved November 11, 2014 from
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2012/04/27/what-service-users-want-from-social-workers/ Buckley, H., Carr, N., & Whelan, S. (2011). ‘Like
walking on eggshells’: Service user views and expectations of the child protection system. Child and Family Social Work, 16, 101‒110.
Bywaters, P. (2013). Inequalities in child welfare: Towards and new policy, research and action agenda. British Journal of Social Work. First
published online: May 3, 2013, 1‒18. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bct079
Featherstone, B. (2010). Ethic of care. In M. Gray & S.A. Webb (Eds.), Ethics and value perspectives in social work (pp. 73‒84). Basingstoke,
Hampshire: Palgrave.
Featherstone, B., White, S., & Morris, K. (2014). Reimagining child protection: Towards humane social work with families. Bristol: Policy Press.
Gilbert, R., Kemp, A., Thoburn, J., Sidebotham, P., Radford, L., Glaser, D. & Macmillan, H.L. (2009a). Recognising and Responding to Child
Maltreatment, The Lancet, 373 (9658), 167-180.
Gray, M., & Gibbons, J. (2007). There are no answers, only choices: Teaching ethical decision making in social work. Australian Social Work,
60(2), 222‒238.
Gray, M., & Webb, S.A. (Eds.). (2010). Ethics and value perspectives in social work. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave.
Harries, M. (2008). The experiences of parents and families of children and young people in care. The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA:
Centre for Vulnerable Children and Families.
Lonne, B., Harries, M., Featherstone, B., & Gray, M. (forthcoming). Working ethically in child protection. London: Taylor & Francis.
Pelton, L. (2014). The continuing role of material factors in child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 41, 30-39.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.08.001
Queensland University of Technology (QUT) & Social Research Centre (SRC). (2013). The child and family services outcomes survey 2012 final
report. Melbourne: Department of Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/about-the-department/documents-and-
resources/reports-publications/the-child-and-family-services-outcomes-survey
16