This document discusses the need for more humane social work practices that focus on relationships and care rather than risk and bureaucracy. It argues that current child protection systems often fail to address the underlying psychosocial problems facing families and instead focus solely on intervening and removing children. The concept of an "ethic of care" is presented as an alternative framework that stresses interdependence, vulnerability, and responsibility towards others. The document calls for organizational reforms that give families more support and choice, repair relationships rather than rupture them, and make the well-being of children and families the highest priority.

1. Towards humane
organizations
Ethics of care in practices with families with intergenerational
psychosocial problems

3. Why did we write the book?
• The possibilities for humane social work had been squeezed out by neo-liberalism,
the audit culture and a particular model of child protection
• Conditional social protections in the context of increasing inequality
• Confidence measures prioritised in organisations that were highly risk averse and
bureaucratic despite numerous critiques
• Dominance of a language of intervention rather than of help or support
• Increasing focus on the child as an individual rather then a relational being
• The gendered implications of a discourse focused on risk and responsibility

4. • The book was influenced by the ethic of care and writings in the area of relational welfare
• The ethic of care influenced us because of its concern to stress our interdependency, our
vulnerability and our capacity to give and receive care
• It offers a different ethic to that stressing independence and short-term interventions
• It offers possibilities for hearing multiple voices and countering ‘othering’ and distancing
• It offers the opportunity to re-think our responsibility towards each other and towards ‘the
distant stranger’
The ethic of care

5. • Care is not a parochial concern of women, a type of secondary moral
question, or the work of the least well off in society. Care is a central
concern of human life. It is time that we began to change our political and
social institutions to reflect this’ (Tronto, 1993, p,180).
A key point

6. • Lots of criticisms
• Difference feminism that fitted with wider conservative political trends
• However, the work has been both an indicator of, and a contributor to, a major
shift in 20th century thought
• Attack on man as the rational, abstract, autonomous constitutor of knowledge
• In the work of many sociologists and social policy academics offered an alternative
ethic to different variants of neo-liberalism
It is not a finished product……

7. Key contributor here has been Joan Orme who has sought to enrich feminist
social work theory and also to bring increasingly sophisticated debates about
care to the attention of social work: ‘traditional ethics heard a single voice of
disembodied moral principles, feminist ethics ...hears multiple voices ...social
work needs to challenge the excessive bureaucratization of confining those
who require care, and indeed those who provide it, into ...homogeneized
categories’ (Orme, 2002, 809
Applied to family practices (see summary in Featherstone and Morris, 2012)
Applications to social work

8. Relational welfare
• Relationships, relationships, relationships
• A critique of transactional models of welfare services
• A challenge to organisational practices
• A focus on connections and communities

9. Intergenerational psychosocial problems
• What do we mean by such phrases?
• What is psychosocial?
• Are we talking about histories of pain, hurt and deprivation?
• Whose problems and why?
• Is there space in such language for consideration of the organisational
contribution to such histories or is the family the locus of problems?

10. Jenny’s story
• Jenny is 22 and was removed from her family and placed in care when she
was 12, because she was psychologically damaged due to emotional neglect
• Jenny had a baby when she was 20. Her baby was removed from her because
she was too psychologically damaged to parent her well
• As Jenny asks ‘why were my psychological difficulties not dealt with?
• Whose failure?
• Systems failures or moral failures?

11. System failure or moral failure?
• In England there is no statutory obligation to offer support to a mother or father
when a child is removed
• We have increasing evidence of birth mothers losing numbers of children in
sequence and, moreover, of the links for many of these mothers with being in care
themselves
• ‘But if you take a child away from its natural family, and we haven’t as a society
looked at effective treatments that could reasonably be made available to keep that
parent and child together.. Then we fail society. We fail the people in it’
(Professional quoted in Tickle, 2015)

12. Our adoption narrative
• Adoption was born at The Foundling Hospital in the 18th century
(Boorman, 2015)
• The taking in of poor women’s children was seen as a charitable act, as was
changing children’s names and separating siblings
• Some mothers would lose more than one child and siblings would be left
unaware of their connections
• There was no contact between women and their children after handover
reunification in adulthood rarely happened

13. But it’s all different now of course
• No, sadly it is not
• Adult adoptees tell us of loss of identity, race, class, choice and truth
• We continue today on the same path…

14. Listening to children and young people
• Relationships are the golden thread
• Trust, reliability and kindness
• Let us build systems that respect and repair rather than rupture

15. So what would a humane organisation look
like?
• Ella’s story
Sitting alongside Ella
Giving Ella resources
Offering her opportunities to exercise choice over workers
( TED talk from Hilary Cottam – t.ted.com/ze5BKNQ)

16. References
• Boorman, A (2015) ‘The current adoption isn’t that different from the 18th century’,
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2015/10/23
• Featherstone, B. and Morris, K. (2012) ‘The feminist ethics of care’ in M. Gray, J.
Midgley and S. Webb (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Social Work, London: Sage
• Featherstone, B., White, S. and Morris, K (2014) Re-imagining child protection
• Orme, J. (2002) 'Social work: Gender, care and justice', British Journal of Social Work,
vol 32, pp 799-814
• Tickle, L (2015) ‘Are we failing parents whose children are taken into care?’ The
Guardian, April, 25