Wakefield child abuse scandal puts social work attitudes in spotlight

Full Story:
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/News_0434.htm
What would you think if you heard a woman shout "I'll cut the legs off you!" at her children? That she was exasperated by their behaviour and at the end of her tether? Or that she was intent on injuring them?
Twenty years ago, a top psychologist at a London hospital overheard an Irish mother shout just that at her kids, decided they were at risk and convened an emergency child protection meeting. Social workers and other professionals summoned at short notice were shocked that he was apparently unable to differentiate between the colloquial language used by a woman from a different culture and a serious threat of harm.
Or what about this scenario: two social workers visit a house where a boy is displaying signs of mania. He rampages through the house, destroying everything in his path. He is out of control. One of the social workers sees he is clearly in mental distress, while the other gently explains that there is no problem, he's "just working class".
Assumptions in any given context can be risky, but in social work they can have dangerous repercussions.
Social work attitudes looked at retrospectively can seem naive. Practice may have come a long way, but there will always be issues that challenge social workers. One recent case, involving a gay foster couple approved by Wakefield Council who were later convicted of abusing boys in their care, has provided the latest evidence of that.
Social workers at the Yorkshire council missed signs that Ian Wathey and Craig Faunch were abusing boys placed in their care between 2003 and 2005. An inquiry report into the case, published in August, quotes one member of staff as saying: "The fear of being seen as prejudiced, the risk of talking about the words gay and paedophile together, was too great. There was a pervasive anxiety that, if this view was put forward in writing or verbally, the person putting it forward would be accused of being prejudiced and homophobic."
Another staff member said: "You don't want to reflect negatively on gay couples, especially in social services. I'd be thinking 'am I being prejudiced, is it my own prejudice making me doubt the skills of these carers, these two gay men, is it because I'm homophobic?', rather than just asking the simple question 'are they abusing kids?'."
Clouded judgments
The report concludes: "It is clear that there were forces at work in this case about sexuality which clouded workers' ability to observe, interpret, think and make judgments in a way which should have been expected of professionally qualified social work practitioners and managers."
This fear, the report argues, led to the "usual rules of social work practice not being followed". In one of a number of "pivotal moments" in the case, one professional accepted an explanation from the carers that they had taken a picture of one of the boys urinating to teach him to close the door when he used the toilet. The worker believed there was "no malice or sinister intent and was the result of their naivety and lack of parenting experience".
Report author Brian Parrott says social workers felt uncomfortable professionally and personally about same-sex relationships. "There is sometimes an anxiety in people about issues related to their own sexuality, as well other people's. That is a deeply uncomfortable subject for many people and social workers are no different."