susie essex 2010
1.If this case were to have the perfect/ miracle



outcome what would that look like?
2.List the main components for safety in that
perfect/miracle, what would they be, what would
you see family members doing. ( Think of the
literature relevant to this area ie causes, grooming,
risk factors, triggers etc and make into a positive
doing things.).
3.If parents/carers were to ask “what do we need
to do to show you our children are safe?”
4.List with specificity and detail what they would
need to do.
susie essex 2010
 5.Of these safety factors which are most important?

6. Which do you think would be easiest to achieve (not
necessarily the same as above) and what would you or a
colleague need to do to help make it happen?

7. Of the remaining safety factors which would be most
difficult to achieve, leave that for Susie to try in a role play.

8.Of the slightly easier ones what might you do differently that
would have an impact on the family to help them move
forward, how might you join them to create a context of
combined problem solving to demonstrate safety factors.
susie essex 2010
‘It’s all about relationships. We are talking about
dealing with people with problems,
with painful stuff. You have to know someone, trust
them. They must be reliable and
be there for you if you are going to be able to talk
about the things you don’t want
to. The things that scare you.’ Parent
Family Perspectives on safeguarding and relationships
with children’s service
The Children’s Commissioner for England, June 2010
susie essex 2010
Resolutions
Risk
Reduction
Programme
Child and Family Solutions
susie essex 2010
1. Thinking about denial
2. Assessment restraints
3. Treatment / Resolutions /
Future Safety
susie essex 2010
According to Home Office statistics children under one
year are 6 times at risk of being killed by a parent or
carer as children aged 1 year to 5 years, and 11 times
at risk compared to children aged 5 years to 16 years.
The NSPCC estimates that 100 children a year are killed
by their parents / carers.
OFSTED reported that serious case reviews were initiated
following the deaths of 81 children who died during
2007.
Serious Case Review Summary 2005 highlighted the
increased risk of suicide following longer term hidden
abuse.
John Gumbleton 2009
susie essex 2010
“There was a small group of cases of physical
abuse, neglect and emotional abuse which
presented special dilemmas to social workers.
They were the ones where neither partner had
admitted responsibility for abusing the child. ….
without an admission the worker could feel
uncertain about how to proceed.”
Farmer E. & Owen M. Child Protection Practice: Private risks and
public remedies, (1995) Pg 229
susie essex 2010
“Amongst the social workers a significant
proportion regarded denial as a barrier to the
formulation of a child protection plan (other
than removal of the child) and in the
development of partnership with families. They
also believed acknowledgement to be a
prerequisite to the commencement of any work
towards rehabilitation.”
Gumbleton & Lusk “Child Abuse: Rehabilitation without admission A new way forward” Family Law (Dec 1999) pg822
susie essex 2010
We can’t always identify the perpetrator/s
We can’t be sure how the abuse happened
We don’t know the precise antecedents to the abuse
We can’t easily identify behavioural / contextual triggers
We don’t know if the child’s carers are telling the truth
It’s difficult to be certain what we’re dealing with
Should we risk further harm to the child by attempting
reunification?
What if the child/young person wants to go home?
What if the parents have another baby?
susie essex 2010






Check back with the family.......
Don’t be overly negative.......
Make sure children have someone outside
the family to talk to.
Take what young people say seriously.
I don’t like to be kept in the dark explain
things more.
Don’t get too involved – let the family try to
solve it.
“Don’t make assumptions” March 2011
www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk
Susie Essex 2011
3/17/2016
11
Participants’ ideas and experience of
denial/disputed/discrepant explanation cases
In two’s discuss your dilemma’s in cases of
denial/dispute, be prepared to feedback one
or two points.
Eg. In a case of sexual abuse, if a parent said they had
done the abuse and said they were very sorry, how
much would you rely on this admission in planning your
work , what might this parent say in other contexts?
susie essex 2010
“The issue of ‘denial’ is a thorny and
complicated one because there is no reliable
way to distinguish accurately the behaviour of a
parent who genuinely denies responsibility
when wrongly suspected from that of a parent
who denies in an attempt to avoid detection of
actual culpability.”
Dale et al “Fine Judgements” (2005) Pg 129
susie essex 2010
“In a similar way, the concept of ‘denial’ in
investigations and assessments of serious
suspicious physical injuries to infants is biased
toward an assumption that parents are
deliberately concealing conscious awareness of
maltreatment, and that their refusal to confess
is confirmatory evidence of this.”
Dale et al “Fine Judgements” (2005) p140
susie essex 2010
They may be innocent/ it might be someone else
 Memory impairment due to drugs, alcohol or a
neurological condition
 Shame /Guilt
 Family repercussions
 Social repercussions
 Criminal repercussions
 Child protection repercussions.
 All act as significant restraints to accepting
responsibility- it might seem the stakes are too high.

susie essex 2010
Recent Developments need to entertain
greater complexity whilst maintaining the
focus on Safety.
 “ .. the conclusions must take into account all
aspects of the family's functioning and not
focus exclusively on the presence or absence
of denial, which is only one element of a
much larger assessment.”

Bentovim.A. in Reder and Lucey (eds) “Studies in the Assessment of
Parenting” (2003) pg 255
susie essex 2010
The Three Domains
Child
Safeguarding and
promoting welfare
Family and Environmental Factors
Susie Essex 2011
3/17/2016
17
Domestic violence/history of Domestic violence
Drug / alcohol abuse/mis-use
Mental health difficulties
Learning Disabilities
Parental denial/dispute
Previous suspicious injuries
Parents with history of abuse as children
Unwillingness / inability to engage with professionals
Isolation/sense of isolation from kinship and
Community,
None of these are predictors on their own, they are
factors that need to be considered and discussed.
susie essex 2010
An acknowledgement of the concerns, (or an understanding
of agencies right to be concerned).
A history of co-operation with professionals
Willingness to accept services including therapeutic work to
address concerns
A viable support network/ kinship system
Good Community links
Good health
A lack of other risk factors
Employment and stable income
Suitable Housing
susie essex 2010

The way that workers approach families and
how they engage with them is as important as
the nature of the work undertaken.

Therapists are aware that the therapeutic
alliance counts for 40% of success and
technique/mode of intervention for only11%.

Co-operation based on the concerns is the
key task.
susie essex 2010
Professionals/
managers and
Court
Family/wider
kinship
Position of the
worker/therapist
susie essex 2010
They may be innocent/ it might be
someone else
Memory impairment due to drugs, alcohol
or a neurological condition
Shame /Guilt
Family repercussions
Social repercussions
Criminal repercussions
Child protection repercussions.
Do we have a a legal and socialcontext that
encourages responsibility. (Ian Leslie, Born Liars
, 2011)
Susie Essex 2011
3/17/2016
22
Building future safety around children
Developing a working partnership based on the concerns
Developing support networks based on the concerns
Co-constructing safe increasing contact leading to
overnight stays and a full return home( assessing risk at
every stage)
Words and pictures to explain the concerns for children
and safety network
Co-constructing family safety guidelines
Working in the “similar but different” to look at literature
and research informing concerns
Focus on future communication, in particular, about
difficult feelings and emotions.
susie essex 2010

Reinforce and foster a sense of self agency with the possible
non-abusing carer and/or key safe people in the childrens
lives.

Build on and/or strengthen the bond between the safe adults
and the child/children

Restrict and control the possible misuse of power of the
alleged abuser

Creating openess by involving helpful significant adults in
keeping children safe, taking account of race, culture,
religion, class and ability.
susie essex 2010
“A recurrent theme for families is the reluctance
of social services to recognise the value of
extended family / kinship resources alongside
‘worst scenarios’ regarding the level of risks,
and lack of resources for more constructive
reunification programmes.”
Dale et al “Fine Judgements” (2005) pg 94
susie essex 2010
susie essex 2010
“Failure to achieve this level of co-operation
helps to explain why some children remain safe
when others do not. The quality of the
relationship between parents and professionals
was found to be the main reason: a recurrence
of abuse was less common in those families
where some agreement had been reached
between professionals and family members
about the legitimacy of the enquiry and the
solutions adopted.”
DoH “Child Protection: Messages from Research” (1995) pg 45
susie essex 2010
Aspects of Future Safety
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Timescale, based on research
Rota of active help to address key aspects of
literature
Significant people, know the concerns
Safety network, prepared to be active and
proactive over a reasonable time scale.
Professional network prepared to be active
Network members, give active support and a
non-critical gaze
Other practical issues, day care, meals,
snacks, medicines, medical appointments etc
All safety measures MUST be focussed on the
Concerns.
susie essex 2010
Alex and Kate Smith have two children, Jake 4
years and Chloe 8 months. Chloe is presented at
hospital having allegedly been dropped by Alex
whilst in his sole care. Medical examination reveals
linear bruising to Chloe’s cheek, rib fractures of
different ages and subdural haematomas, which
the doctors think are non-accidental in origin. The
family are not known to Social Services and the
Health Visitor reports positively about the parenting
and care of the children until this time. Jake is
placed in foster care and Chloe joins him when she
is allowed to leave hospital. Alex and Kate are
allowed contact with the children five days per
week supervised by social workers. The matter is
put before the Court which has to decide what
should happen to the children. Further assessments
reveal no other concerns and both parents deny
they have injured Chloe.
susie essex 2010
Sarah
Jim
Kate
Norman
Alex
Chloe
Jake
susie essex 2010
+

A pre-school girl from Sunday School
(Kelly), where Gerry helped as Leader,
alleged that Gerry had sexually abused
her. The matter was not taken to court
but Social Services “substantiated” the
allegations based on the detail of oral
abuse in the girl’s report. As a result of this
Social Services were concerned for the
current and future safety of Gerry and
Julia’s 3 year old daughter Emma. Julia’s
sister Sharon and Julia’s mother have
been helpful during the investigation.
Susie Essex 2011
3/17/2016
31
+
Sharon
MGM
Julia
Gerry
Kelly
age
4
Emma
age 3
Susie Essex 2011
3/17/2016
32
Summary
1. Preparation
2. Engagement
3. Words and Pictures
4. Family Safety Guidelines
5. Similar but different - role play
6 .Family Safety Plan
7. Future safety Communication and follow up.
Child and Family Solutions
susie essex 2010
Resolutions Programme
Terms
LP - the likely perpetrator
LNAC - the likely non-abusing carer
CPW - child protection worker
FSG - Family Safety Guidelines
Support Network - safe adults around the child
Child and Family Solutions
susie essex 2010
STAGE
PURPOSE
INVOLVING
SESSIONS
CONTACT ARRANGEMENTS
PREPARATORY
Reach agreement regarding participation with all parties fully
understanding program. To proceed both professionals and
parents must make commitments to participate.
All professionals involved with
the case.
Parents, their advisors and key
network people.
1
1
At this stage LPA or children will ideally
be out of the home.
ENGAGEMENT
Engage with parents through understanding their experience,
whilst continually exploring other perspectives. The resolutions
practitioner positions themselves with maximum flexibility
regarding the issues, whilst at all times focusing on the
seriousness of the issues.
Parents
Social services worker to
observe as agreed in stage
one.
2
WORDS AND PICTURES
Create agreed upon, age appropriate explanation regarding the
allegations and/or convictions with the parents. Present to the
children, then to the network.
Developed with parents
Presented to children with help
of parents
Presented to network with help
of family
1 or 2
1
1
Professionally supervised contact
between LPA and children.
Following successful completion of each
stage, the resolutions practitioner
recommends increased contact, the
statutory agency or court must decide on
the changes
Increase professionally supervised
contact.
Contact supervised by network begins.
INTERIM FAMILY SAFETY
GUIDLINES
Identify in detail how family life will be arranged to demonstrate
future safety for children and avoid further
allegations/misunderstandings directed at suspected abuser.
Initially created for contact arrangements but successively
evolves as each step toward reunification is taken.
Developed with likely LNAC,
1
Allows couple to overtly speak about the previously
unspeakable as they role-play a couple where abuse is
admitted. Aims to strengthen and educate LNAC, and focuses
successively on perspectives of perpetrator, non-abusing
caregiver, victim, other siblings and family members and the
consequences as future grand parents. Educates re power
dynamics, grooming cycles, perpetrator behaviours/tactics. This
is NOT a process designed to gain an admission by stealth.
Final plan, which documents future living arrangements to allow
reunification. Plan includes consideration of future difficulties
and a family safety object.
Parents/caregivers
SIMILAR-BUT-DIFFERENT ROLEPLAY
FINAL FAMILY SAFETY PLAN
Increase contact supervised by network.
children and key support
people.
4
First overnight stay.
Increase overnight stays.
Developed with likely LNAC,
children and key support
2
2
people.
Presented to LPA and network.
FOLLOW-UP
Monitor and refine implementation of Family Safety Plan.
susie essex 2010
Everyone possible
2
Family reunification.
Resolutions Programme
1. Preparation
Purpose
Reach agreement
with all parties about
their understanding
of the program
Persons Involved
All professionals
(1 session)
Parents, advisors
and key network
members
(1 session)
Child and Family Solutions
susie essex 2010
Contact
Children (or the LP)
will be out of the
family home
Resolutions Programme
2. Engagement
Purpose
Join with parents,
understand their
position whilst
continually exploring
other perspectives
Persons Involved
Parents.
(1 or 2 sessions)
The therapist positions
self with maximum
flexibility regarding the
issues
At all times maintain the
seriousness of the
issues
Contact
Supervised contact
between LP and
children
Following successful
completion of this stage,
contact may be
increased
Statutory CPW
observes all sessions
for stages 2-6
Child and Family Solutions
susie essex 2010
Statutory Agency or the
Court must decide on
changes
Resolutions Programme
3. Words and Pictures
Purpose
Persons Involved
Contact
Create and agree
Parents
age-appropriate
(1 or 2 sessions)
explanation of the
concerns and events
Presented to the
children
Parents
(1 session)
Increase supervised
contact
Presented to the
support network
Family
(1 session)
Contact supervised
by members of the
support network
Child and Family Solutions
susie essex 2010
Resolutions Programme
4. Family Safety Guidelines
Purpose
Identify in detail how
family life will be rearranged to
demonstrate future
safety for children
Persons Involved
Contact
Parents, particularly the Increased contact
LNAC, children and key supervised by support
support network
network
members
(2 sessions)
Also helps to avoid
further allegations
directed at the LP
Presented to LP and
support network
Family and support
network
(2 sessions)
Child and Family Solutions
susie essex 2010
First over-night stay
Resolutions Programme
5. Similar but Different - role play
Purpose
Allows overt
discussion of the
previously
‘un-discussable’
Persons Involved
Contact
Parents and key
members of the
support network
(3 to 5 sessions)
Strengthen and
educate the LNAC
Not designed to get
an admission of
culpability
Increase the number
of over-night stays
Child and Family Solutions
susie essex 2010
Resolutions Programme
6. Family Safety Plan
Purpose
Final plan that
documents the family’s
future living
arrangements.
Persons Involved
Contact
LNAC, children
and key members
of the support
network
Includes consideration
of the FSG, future
difficulties and safety
objectives
Presented to LP and
the wider audience
Everybody
(2 sessions)
Child and Family Solutions
susie essex 2010
Family reunification
Resolutions Programme
7. Follow up
Purpose
Monitor the
implementation of the
Family Safety Plan,
and review its
operation in practice
Persons Involved
Everybody!
Child and Family Solutions
susie essex 2010
Contact






How do we create a context for the work.
How do we create an atmosphere of collaboration and cooperation.
How do we bear in mind time as an important aspect of our work.
M.Friedlander, V.Escudero,and L.Heatherington 2006 Chapters
10,11, and 12.
“Do not.... Interpret rejection as ill will. Tell clients that their
behaviour reflects dysfunction/psychopathology.
Do...Explore family dynamics prompting reluctance. Thoroughly
analyse the context to understand mistrust. Renegotiate the context
and meaning of treatment to enhance all aspects of the alliance.
susie essex 2010






What do they think today’s meeting is about?
What have they been told and by whom?
What are they hoping will come out of today’s meeting?
Who is most concerned at present, what are they
concerned about, who else is concerned and what are
they concerned about?
Who has been most helpful to date?
Who or what has made most sense so far?
susie essex 2010

Can you give me an example of how your family of origin dealt with,
or overcame a difficulty or worry, how did they try to sort it out,
whose help did they seek, and what ideas did they seem to find
most helpful back then?

How would you tackle that worry or difficulty now, what would you
do the same what would you do differently, who would you seek out
for help?
How do worries currently get raised, talked about and resolved?

Is talking about worries a helpful idea, if they are not talked about
how do they get resolved?
How would you like your children to remember you as parents,
what do you hope they will be proudest/pleased about?

susie essex 2010


What do they think their child X(however young) makes
of what is happening?
What makes them think she/he knows or thinks that?

What has she/he been told?
What questions has he/she asked or what has she/he
seen or heard?

What stories might he/she be telling himself?

susie essex 2010


What do they think their child X(however young) makes
of what is happening?
What makes them think she/he knows or thinks that?

What has she/he been told?
What questions has he/she asked or what has she/he
seen or heard?

What stories might he/she be telling himself?

susie essex 2010
Risk Reduction
Future Focused Safety Work
The empirical evidence is that lack of compliance,
rather than denial, is the best indicator of re-abuse.
(E Farmer, M Owen 1995)
By leaving denial relatively unchallenged the
Resolutions approach allows families to comply, in
cooperation and partnership with agencies, about
the future safety of their children.
Partnership is based on
 Openness
 Respect
susie essex 2010
Respect, in child protection based on
Rigour and Grace
Based on
 Not being rude
 Not getting in their way
 No gratuitous opinions
Conversation with George Walker and Helen Young 1998
For further reading to understand the stance in a risk reduction
program see chapter 3 in
‘Working with ‘Denied’ Child Abuse, The Resolutions Approach.’
Susie Essex and Andrew Turnell
susie essex 2010

How to talk to them
susie essex 2010




Listening carefully.
Use their Language and where necessary run their
words alongside professionals words.
Interrupt only to underline strengths and resources.
Be clear about own role, relationship to referrer, and
limits to confidentiality.
Coming in from the outer edge
susie essex 2010





Following not leading.
Curiosity about others views and opinions.
A stance of curiosity and not knowing too quickly.
Warming the context to ask about more difficult aspects.
Allow them to tell their story, this is not agreeing but expressing interest in
their perspective and ideas.
Pictures to Underscore Listening.
“So X would have seen you were surprised when the doctor called the ambulance.”
susie essex 2010

Could we leave whether you did it or not to one side, up on a shelf
so to speak?

If the dispute was easy to resolve I guess it would have happened
by now.

Current research indicates, I can understand from the research and
literature why they are worried but i do hear what you are saying , I
have made a note of it here.

Don’t be tempted to give a definitive position.
susie essex 2010

The Relevance of the Judges Decision.
susie essex 2010
susie essex 2010

End of day one do practice exercises
susie essex 2010
Explanations for children as to what has
happened in their family and why they
may not be living at home, using
drawing, play people etc.
Undertaken with children and their
parents and often with members of the
support network present.
susie essex 2010
STAGE
 PURPOSE
 INVOLVING
 SESSIONS
 CONTACT ARRANGEMENTS
 PREPARATORY
 Reach agreement regarding
participation with all parties fully
understanding program. To proceed

susie essex 2010
Words and Pictures
“Some adults who, despite having had very traumatic childhoods
about which they can nevertheless tell coherent stories, are likely
to have securely attached children.
One important therapeutic implication of this finding is that
it may be helpful, perhaps even transforming, to help the family
to tell a more coherent story about its painful experiences,
including its illnesses.”
Byng-Hall, J. (1997)
susie essex 2010
In threes think of the DVD family with
injured baby Chloe.
 What might you expect someone to say
to Jake about why he and his sister were
going to Foster carers for a while?
( Think how you might use age appropriate
language and some pictures)
 Who might explain to Jake, how might
you help them explain?

susie essex 2010
Fictitious Case Example for
Fabricated or Induced Illness
Family Members



Mother: Mari 24
Father: Ralph 32
Jodie
Hospital


Dual Heritage 2nd Generation
White UK
born Autumn 2006
age 1 month Apnoea attack
age 6 weeks Apnoea attack and rash
age 3 months rash possible Apnoea
Previous Child Death
New Baby Due
Boy Eli age 10 months in 2005
Easter 2008
The Safety Network
Grandmother:
dual heritage white UK and black British
Great Uncle Frank and girlfriend Jo (Grandpa died 2005, white UK)
Godmother: Connie
Church friends: Pastor Mark and Cheryl etc….
susie essex 2010
Words and Pictures for Jodi - 1
In 2006, in the Winter, Jodi had a rash on her face.
The doctor came to see Jodi.
Grandma Sophie was there, as Mum had called her because
they were so worried about Jodi.
The doctor gave Mum and Dad a letter, saying ‘Please take Jodi
to Hospital.’
susie essex 2010
Words and Pictures for Jodi - 2
Jodi went to the Hospital. Mummy told them Jodi seemed a bit floppy
in the night. The doctors said ‘The rash might be a virus, but we
need to check.’
Jodi stayed in Hospital.
susie essex 2010
Words and Pictures for Jodi - 3
The doctors were worried as this was the third time in 3 months
that Jodi had come to Hospital since she was born.
The doctors talked to another doctor…..they thought the rash might be
because someone had stopped Jodie breathing but they couldn’t be sure.
…..then they talked to Social Services and other people.
susie essex 2010
Words and Pictures for Jodi - 4
There was a big meeting - a Case Conference.
The doctor said ‘We are very worried about Jodi’s rash. We think she might have
been hurt’
The Case Conference decided to ask another doctor
in London to see Jodi.
susie essex 2010
Words and Pictures for Jodi - 5
In London, Mummy and Daddy said Jodi had one rash and
had been to hospital lots because she was ill.
The doctors seemed to say different things. Everyone was very worried.
The Social Worker said this is confusing and worrying. I have to make sure
Jodi is safe .
We need a Judge to help sort it out.
The Judge said she thought Jodi had been hurt when mummy was looking
after her.
She said she had to be sure Jodi would not be hurt again.
susie essex 2010

Cover story for Jake?
susie essex 2010
susie essex 2010
Helping families find ways of caring for their
children that enhances their chances of staying
safe and reduces the risks.
The guidelines are co-constructed with parents,
children (if of sufficient age and understanding),
members of the support network and professionals.
Difficulties become things to solve and create
more safety not barriers to work.
susie essex 2010
susie essex 2010
A pretend family is drawn up with the parents and we
agree the basic family structure, ages, names etc.
This pretend family will contain a child who has
sustained non-accidental injuries of a similar level of
seriousness to the real parents’ own child. In the
pretend scenario one of the parents will have admitted
harming the child.
We explore the scenario from the perspective of the
pretend parents, extended family, children and
professionals. We also look into the future to consider
the long term child protection implications.
susie essex 2010
Resolutions Programme
Similar but Different - role play
The context is a different, hypothetical, family.
The technique facilitates discussion of issues that the real family may
consider to be too difficult; too close to home.
Many details about the lifestyle of the 'Similar but Different' family may be
different to those of the real one - but the abuse will be similar enough.
Carers consider the point of view and feelings of the 'Similar but Different'
family members: a child/victim, siblings, the abuser, the safer carer,
the extended family.
We consider life within the 'Similar but Different' family in five, ten, twenty,
perhaps thirty years time, when the hypothetical carers are grandparents.
By this means the long-term narrative of the 'Similar but Different' family
attempts to provide a model of the future for the real parents.
Child and Family Solutions
susie essex 2010
General re-abuse rates are between 25 - 33%
Follow up of the first 17 families worked with in
Resolutions at Bristol NSPCC showed a 3 - 7%
re-abuse rate
Work with a similar number of families
subsequently at NSPCC showed similar results
Since being in private practice for the last 6
years we have had equal or better outcomes
susie essex 2010
Resolutions Programme
Statistical study: 17 families, 38 children*
Before commencement
of Resolutions Programme
Sexual
Abuse
After
Programme
Physical Total
Abuse
Further
abuse
recorded
Known or thought
to have been
abused
7
8
15
1
Thought to be at
risk
18
5
23
0
*Gumbleton, 1997
Further abuse statistics gathered from Child Protection Registers, UK NSPCC and Social Services files
Child and Family Solutions
susie essex 2010
“Unknown proportions of parents who are
‘written off’ by social services can be worked
with very productively when approached in
specific ways. Many initially ‘unreasonable’
families can be influenced over time into a
much more amenable and co-operative stance.”
Dale et al “Fine Judgements” (2005) pg 197
susie essex 2010
“Although specialist skills need to be developed in
working with serious cases of child abuse, many
practitioners already have the fundamental skills
necessary to undertake positive work with families. In
many child protection cases, however, practitioners do
not employ these skills because of the adversarial
positions that develop between professionals and
families. This becomes compounded where carers deny
responsibility for abuse.”
Gumbleton, J. “The reunification of children in serious child protection
cases”, Context, (August 2004) pg 5
susie essex 2010


“… in principle, and in general child protection
practice, the fact that a serious injury to an
infant remains unexplained or in dispute is not,
in itself, a barrier to some such children being
returned home in the context of child protection
plans involving appropriate monitoring, family
support and therapeutic services.”
Dale et al “Fine Judgements” (2005) p211
susie essex 2010
Visit to family one year later.
 Review words and pics.
 Review family safety guidelines.
 Do safety ladder, same paper and same
colour pens, all into a shoe box.
 Any mark below halfway need to add
one or two safety factors.

susie essex 2010
“Denial” can be a significant risk factor but should not
necessarily rule out reunification
Professionals need to be open to all possibilities,
including that the child’s carers are telling the truth
The way that professionals approach families has an
important bearing on outcomes for children
Professionals should seek strengths and positives, as
well as taking due note of the concerns
We should actively seek out support networks
Successful assessment and therapeutic work can be
undertaken in “denial/disputed” cases
susie essex 2010
susie essex 2010