Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
Child care policies and the supervision of guardianship authorities are significant elements of the socially-oriented work of the legal field. The example case reported by Smith (2018) proves that a large multi-agency team is involved in promoting child safety and controlling parental behavior. At the same time, as the case outcome shows, despite the extensive base of parties engaged, tragic situations do occur. The childs death due to the fault of their father can be partly considered a consequence of individual services omission. This paper aims to analyze the multi-agency involvement in Smiths (2018) case. In addition, by drawing on the relevant theoretical background, the causes and consequences of oversight bodies failures will be examined, and individual aspects of their performance will be evaluated from the perspective of effectiveness.
Multi-Agency Involvement
The case under consideration was classified as serious and involved the participation and interaction of a number of parties. According to Smith (2018), after a high-profile case of the murder of the child by his father, a special review team was organized. It included the City & Hackney Safeguarding Board, the City & Hackney Clinical Commissioning Group, Hackney Childrens Social Care, and the local police service. In addition, a number of agencies were engaged as advisory services.
Along with the official boards, medical services were also engaged in the analysis of the case. This was initiated to find out how the mothers pregnancy had gone and whether there had been any prerequisites for unjustified aggression by the father of the family. According to the report from the clinic where the twins were born, the womans pregnancy was normal, and there was no evidence of domestic abuse or any other sign of future tragedy. Since midwifery support is an important aspect of interaction with expectant mothers, consultations with the staff of the maternity hospital were held. No evidence of suspicion by the clinic staff of health risks to the mother and her children was found. The children were vaccinated, and the mother reported that her partner was supportive. This confirms the fact that at an early stage, it was impossible to predict the tragedy that happened.
Testimony from general practitioners confirmed that the husband continued to support his wife as the children grew older. However, since the man had been almost always absent during medical visits, it was difficult to get an objective picture. Reports from the employer of the accused confirmed that the latter often left work early on the pretext of childcare, although he was not actually present at home. The mothers testimonies about her husbands changed attitude due to jealousy became the only evidence of the reason for the crime. Thus, despite a wide range of parties that could have noticed the prerequisites for the tragedy and notified the relevant services, the murder of the child was not prevented.
Reasons for the Failure
One of the main reasons why the tragedy was not prevented was the lack of timely collaboration among numerous services. Although a large number of government and social boards are involved in targeted activities to ensure the safety of the child population and control compliance with regulatory frameworks, there is no single algorithm for interaction. The communication of all groups of participants can be described in the context of Tuckmans theory, which, as Delice, Rousseau, and Feitosa (2019) note, suggests following several stages of productive communication. In Smiths (2018) case, the agencies concerned only became active after the tragedy had occurred. If, for instance, the employer of the accused had communicated the concerns about the behavior of the accused to the relevant control authorities, this could have been the reason for initiating proceedings. The medical services could also have notified the guardianship authorities of the systematic absence of the womans partner, which, however, was not performed. As a result, an extensive team of stakeholders acted separately, which did not help prevent the tragedy.
To function successfully, the stakeholders involved had to not only develop tasks to address relevant social problems but also deliver results timely. As Carpenter (2019) argues, this is in line with Tuckmans model where, through team effort, the right solutions are found together, indicating the productivity of the work done and the contribution of each participant. In addition, the emotional aspect of work can be seen as one of the barriers to effective practice. According to Chuard (2021), when depressed or agitated, multi-agency groups have little chance of productive collaboration. In the context of the case in question, in which, among others, the guardianship authorities were involved, such a problem seems objective. These services have to deal with difficult cases regularly, which could be a deterrent in the timely prevention of the tragedy of the murdered child. If more attention had been paid to this particular family in view of the concerns about the parents distinctive cultural background and evidence of the fathers frequent absence, this could have made a difference. However, the hard work of this service was a barrier to effective communication and support.
One of the stakeholders of the multi-agency team, to which few claims can be made, is the police. Law enforcement officers are not policymakers; they do not carry out the targeted supervision of children and are not involved in the work of providing family counseling. As a result, the local police acted upon the fact of the crime, and their participation in preventing the tragedy was unlikely. In addition, as Ashley, Armitage, and Taylor (2017) remark, law enforcement officials are engaged in extensive work to identify abuse violations against children. However, given the lack of complaints from the mother and notifications from social services, little could be expected from the police. Therefore, despite their inaction, claims against them may hardly be justified.
The admitted failure can also be explained in terms of the indecisiveness of the social services involved. Despite the sad lessons from past cases, childcare authorities are not ready to interact with the target audience actively. Shaw and Greenhow (2021, p. 482) state that such behavior is driven by risk-averse fears of being accused of failure . As a result, without a clear vision of the prospects for their activities, these services cannot address the interests of those in need timely, which, ultimately, can cause tragedies like the one being analyzed.
Conclusion
The evaluation of the actions of the multi-agency team involved in the serious case of the childs murder shows that the failure was caused by insufficiently effective collaboration among the parties concerned. In addition, the potential fear of responsible services in excessive activities may also be offered as one of the critical reasons. According to Tuckmans theory, productive interaction occurs at the late stage of group work. The multi-agency team in question did not have a well-established communication algorithm, and with the exception of the police, both regulatory authorities and visiting medical personnel could have done more to prevent the tragedy.
Reference List
Ashley, L., Armitage, G. and Taylor, J. (2017) Recognising and referring children exposed to domestic abuse: a multiprofessional, proactive systemsbased evaluation using a modified Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Health & Social Care in the Community, 25(2), pp. 690-699.
Carpenter, A. C. (2019) The role of conflict resolution in a major urban partnership to fight human trafficking, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 36(4), pp. 311-327.
Chuard, M. (2021) Primitive anxieties and the small group: multi-agency working and the risk of collaboration, Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 47(1), pp. 18-31.
Delice, F., Rousseau, M. and Feitosa, J. (2019) Advancing teams research: what, when, and how to measure team dynamics over time, Frontiers in Psychology, 10, pp. 1-20.
Shaw, J. and Greenhow, S. (2021) Professional perceptions of the care-crime connection: risk, marketisation and a failing system, Criminology & Criminal Justice, 21(4), pp. 472-488.
Smith, F. (2018) City of London & Hackney Safeguarding Children Board: serious case review: child N & O.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.