1. Lecturer in Child and Public Protection, Edinburgh Napier University
Social workers’ thinking processes in cases involving sexual behaviour between siblings
Dr. Peter Yates
Lecturer in Child and Public Protection, Edinburgh Napier University
Heart and Head: Messages from research and practice on supporting effective judgement in social work
22nd January 2016
10.20
Good morning, my name is Peter Yates, currently a lecturer at ENU, previously social worker in C+F practice team and then worked for specialist service with children with HSB, developed interest in sibling sexual abuse, and here today to talk about some of my findings from my PhD (completed last year) on how social workers make decisions in cases involving sexual behaviour between siblings.

2. Frames
A frame is like a mental filter. The world is not perceived directly but through a mental filter, comprising of templates of interpretations of prior experiences, concepts and constructed knowledge.
10.22 – 10.25
And in particular I’d like to talk about this concept of frames.
Hard to find a decent definition of frames, but they’re very much like cognitive schema, scripts, gestalts – all mean much the same thing. Give definition – we see the world not as it is but as we are.
So how one person perceives a situation may be different from how another person perceives the situation, depending on their respective frames.
The other thing about frames is that we engage in mechanisms, usually unconscious but possibly conscious, to maintain them. So when we are confronted with evidence which doesn’t fit our frame, we can tend to either not see it at all, or interpret in such a way as to confirm and maintain our frame, our way of looking at the world.
Example of the roadsign – roadsigns framed as clear, easy to read – if we see one that’s all blurry we’re likely to question our eyesight rather than the roadsign.
How we see and interpret the world is contingent upon our frames; how social workers see and interpret their case worlds is also contingent upon their frames.

3. Social worker decision making around whether siblings can:
remain living together
have contact with each other
return to live together again
10.25 – What I was interested to find out, from their perspective, was how do social workers make decisions about sibling living and contact arrangements following sibling sexual behaviour becoming known.
Defined sibling sexual behaviour broadly – wanted to know how social workers made sense of it themselves.

4. 6 local authorities in Scotland
What I did
6 local authorities in Scotland
Interviewed 21 social workers regarding 21 families
54 children involved in sibling sexual behaviour
3 examples of sexual behaviour regarded as mutually initiated
10.26
Involved talking retrospectively through a case from start to finish, exploring the decisions that were made along the way.
The rest involved behaviour where the social workers clearly identified one sibling as the perpetrator and the other as victim.
I analysed the data according to grounded theory methodology – as Martin will also talk about in relation to his research.
So what did I find?

5. “It was just question marks.” (Jenny)
What actually happened
The impact of the behaviour
Chances of it happening again
Parents’ abilities to stop it happening again
Impact of removing child from the family
And on and on…
10.27
Firstly it became clear very quickly that the decision making within these cases took place within a context of considerable uncertainty, or as Jenny put it, “It was just question marks”. (Jenny’s not her real name by the way, I’ve anonymised all the names and case details in the study). So there were questions marks or uncertainty over – read the list. Which is perhaps not so surprising in that most social work decision making takes place within highly uncertain contexts.
But social workers have to make decisions anyway.
And in the context of great certainty, tended not to make analytical, assessment-based decisions, tended to make decisions based on intuition – influenced by their frames and their relationships with families.

6. Impact of the behaviour Risk Parents’ capacity to protect
Assessment of…
Impact of the behaviour
Risk
Parents’ capacity to protect
Sibling relationship quality
The views of the children
10.28
So, rather than basing their decisions on an assessment of, for example,
Talk though this is what I might expect decisions to be based upon.
Only 5 of 21 SW reported considering the impact – and even if it had significant impact, didn’t nec preclude contact
Risk of recurrence was clearly a concern, even their primary concern, but very few Swkrs actually spoke about assessing risk as part of their decision making
Only one spoke about assessing parenting capacity (I didn’t specifically ask)
3 sib rel quality
And the victim children were particularly conspicuous by their absence in the social workers’ accounts.
(Only 5 swkrs who worked with perp only)
So, rather than making decisions based on detailed assessment and analysis, decisions were made largely intuitively, influenced particularly by the social workers’ relationship with the children and family, and by their frames

7. The social workers’ practice mindset
Parents as well- intentioned protective
Children as vulnerable and intending no sexual harm to others
Siblings as better together
Sibling relationships as non-abusive and of intrinsic value
10.30
Three principle frames that I identified as influencing social workers’ decision making in these cases, and together they formed the practice mindset ‘siblings as better together’ – i.e. they encouraged decision making in practice to keep sibs together (living together, returning to live together or in contact with each other.
Mindset shapes the social workers’ perceptions and interpretations of cases involving sexual behaviour between siblings, and is comprised of three frames, tended to produce practice decisions to keep siblings together.

8. Children as vulnerable and intending no sexual harm to others
Doubting whether the behaviour happened
Resisting labelling the behaviour as abuse
“But I always kind of felt that it was more ex-, experimentation than, sexual abuse as such…And it did seem, well, maybe it wasn't a one-off, we don't know…I know it's sexual abuse but it did still seem more, I don't, I think in her wee, in her head, I'm not sure whether she'd got any satisfaction out of it as such.
I don't know, was it ex-, I don't know. It seems bad saying it was just experimentation, because it's much more than that, if you, I know if, it's much, much more than that, it is abuse.” (Liz)
10.31
Social workers framed children as vulnerable and intending no sexual harm to others – so not sexual abusers, children do not intend sexual harm, this is not what children are like. Number of mechanisms to support the maintenance of this frame.
Doubting the behaviour happened – give James example of Mum reporting. Therefore together
Then resisting labelling – most used terms like inappropriate, experimental, exploratory. This might be OK, as long as we know it’s wrong and it’s harmful – but does the language risk understating the seriousness of the behaviour and the impact of the behaviour. And evidence that if not abusive, no need to separate.
But sometimes a genuine struggle to make sense of the behaviour – It can’t be abuse as this is a child. We don’t want to label this behaviour as abuse because we don’t want to label, or think about, a child as a sexual abuser. Need for repetition. Was there intention to harm? Don’t want to think about children as abusers, as intending harm, so use other terms to describe the behaviour.
NB relationship to the perpetrator, older the child, the less emotional and remorseful – behaviour labelled according to a judgement of the character of the child rather than the characteristics of the behaviour (cf example of rape – need to get to know him first.

9. Child frame continued…
Looking for reasons
The perpetrator is a child, but the victim is the child
Frame stronger the younger the child, the closer the social worker’s relationship with the child, the more remorseful the child
Looking for reasons to explain the behaviour – Can’t just say, oh, this is a sexual abuser. Did not look for reasons with adults. tend to emphasise the perpetrator’s victim experiences and reduce culpability and intention. (largely in keeping with the literature) NB no consideration of the sibling relationship / family dynamics.
Perp is a child – when push comes to shove, prioritise the victim, but conscious and self-reflexive effort, perhaps actively avoid the victim, and perp also a victim – again borne out by literature.
So no easy decisions here.
NB Frame maintenance – seen through this frame interpret the behaviour in this way – maintains the frame. Sib sexual behaviour could challenge the frame, but (and it does – conscious effort to maintain it) lack of remorse more of a challenge to the frame than the sexual behaviour

10. Sibling relationships as non-abusive and of intrinsic value
Requiring a second incident
Focusing on safety
“There was no evidence at the time of contact being damaging…although what had happened was very serious and actually probably was quite traumatic for Paul, erm. We didn't stop to question these things. That's what I'm thinking just now…I didn't stop to think whether contact was appropriate or not. I just assumed that it would be important to maintain a bond.” (Scott)
10.36
Social workers framed sibling relationships as non-abusive and of intrinsic value – further militated against labelling the behaviour as abuse.
Sibs rels may be all sorts of things – rivalrous, jealous, fighting, nurturing, whatever – just not abusive, and whatever the relationship like, assumed to have some intrinsic value.
Mechanisms which maintained and provided evidence for this frame.
No examples of siblings being separated or contact stopped on the basis of a single incident, whatever the nature of the incident – could be to do with child frame (uncertain how to interpret the behaviour) could also be to do with parent frame – parents are well-intentioned protective so give them a second chance. But I also think it’s about not being able to contemplate an abusive sib rel, not wishing to disrupt a valuable rel on the basis of just one incident.
Second mechanism was about focusing on Immediate, physical safety – very few mentioned emotional safety, consideration of the impact of the behaviour. So as long as behaviour could be stopped, keep living together or arrange contact. Nothing wrong with the relationship – it’s valuable, neither cause nor casualty of the sibling sexual behaviour. And then with Scott – who didnlt think that the Mum could keep things safe – arranged contact.

11. Sibling relationships…
Making rules
Anticipating others’ decisions
“They are family members and there's only so long that you can go without introducing them back together.” (Angela)
“There just became a time where we thought, right time's getting on now…I don't think there was any particular incident or something happened or work done…the decision was made because of a lapse of time rather than…any particular change in risk.” (Liz)
Frame stronger if siblings had lived and grown up together, and the more the social worker was acquainted with the children as siblings
10.38
So there was an assumption that sibling relationships are valuable. No assessment of their quality. See quote
Make rules – all sorts of lengths to keep the siblings in the same household or having contact, but nothing about the quality of the relationship, no work done, no sense that that behaviour might result from the relationship or damage the relationship in any way. Neither cause nor casualty.
Separation not a long-term solution. If children want to return to live together or have contact we’ll support it, or if we think they will want it, we’ll do it now while we’re involved. NOT – it’s dangerous or damaging, so we’ll keep them apart whilst ever we have the power to do so (as would be the case with adult sex offenders, especially fathers, perhaps less so mothers), instead, let’s get them back together while we’re involved.
So, there’s only so long…
NB Acquianted with the children as siblings, siblings had lived and grown up together. Less pressure to keep siblings together, more likely to separate and keep apart if sibs not living together in the first place – but very rarely an assessment of the relationship quality of the impact of the sexual abuse on the quality of the relationship.
Neither cause nor casualty. Just focus on immediate safety

12. Parents as well-intentioned protective
‘On board’:
Someone I can work with
Having a shared understanding of the problem
Did they report the incident?
Are they willing to accept support?
Do they show commitment to both children, but seem willing to prioritise the victim?
10.41
So, a focus on immediate safety. This was therefore the most telling criterion for whether siblings should be separated or not.
And this is where the parents came in – would they provide this safety? Rather than assessing the parent’s capacity or ability to protect, instead make a judgement was whether they were the kind of parent who would be likely to want to try.
Well-intentioned – are they the kind of parents who seem to have the intention to do their best to try to care for, look after the children, love them, want the best for them
Protective – wanting to try to protect the children
So overlapping but distinct, and again So not about ability, but intention. Are they the kind of parents who would try
The social workers inferred from their relationship with parents whether or not the parents were well-intentioned protective with respect to the children.
So if on board, then well-intentioned protective.
On board = someone I can work with; having a shared understanding of the problem

13. “Er, the parents. And I think it was the fact of the parents were fully on board… They were the ones that went ahead to social work. They didn't have to disclose that, who would know? They were the ones that went ahead with the information. They wanted support. They fully wanted support. They recognised that he might be accommodated, but they wanted to try at least attempt to have him at home.” (Mary)
Expected to engage more meaningfully in longer-term, but not if under pressure, e.g. of time and resources
10.43
When I asked Mary what was most influential in the decision to allow the siblings to remain at home, she said - Quote
So in the short-term – report, willing to accept support
And this view of the parents’ character could be challenged by a second incident.
Later, parents need to engage more meaningfully, but pressure of time and resources may reduce expectations of parents.
But if seen as as not well-intentioned, breaking rules and further incident leads to removal

14. “So that's how we knew that this really had…been premeditated
“So that's how we knew that this really had…been premeditated. Um, yeah, it did worry us. But,…I think the fact that he was able to talk about it, and we were able to address it and look at his safety planning,…it didn't prompt us into saying, right let's get him right out of there. Er, 'cause I think there was a lot of guilt attached to it for him. He did feel bad about it. So, yeah. I don't think that, any more so than anything else, was a trigger. So, it was the reporting part, mum not reporting and then not accordingly shifting bedrooms, in terms of, let's look at this risk that's presented [that made us question whether the children could remain living at home].” (Emma)
Quote (part 1)
So again, this boy expressing remorse for his behaviour meant that the behaviour was not labelled as abuse, even despite it being premeditated - the social worker talked about sexualised behaviour - and this second incident was not what triggered considerations about whether the boy needed to be removed as much as (Quote part 2)
Again so it wasn’t about the mother being able to protect (she had not demonstrated that she was able given that this was now a second incident), it was her willingness to protect that seemed to be questioned by the lack of reporting – and this is what made the social worker question whether the children could remain at home. So again it was the parent’s engagement with services that seemed to be very influential over the decision making. Note the absence of the impact on the victim. It’s implied – but not explicitly considered or assessed.

15. Frame stronger for social workers who know and like the parents
“By that point I was actually past the thinking that we need to accommodate these kids. I was quite past that, because [the parents] were engaging really well by that point.” (Emma)
Frame stronger for social workers who know and like the parents
In 8 out of 9 cases where parent (7 cases) or foster carer (2 cases) were ‘on board’ and decision made to keep siblings together, there was a further incident involving sibling or other close family
Make it clear this does NOT mean it was the wrong decision, but just interesting what the rationale for the decision was. The thinking process of the social worker.

16. The social workers’ practice mindset
Parents as well- intentioned protective
Children as vulnerable and intending no sexual harm to others
Siblings as better together
Sibling relationships as non-abusive and of intrinsic value
10.48
So we have this practice mindset, comprised of these three frames, and there are mechanisms which support the maintenance of these frames, and which encourage decision making which supports siblings remaining living together, in contact, or returning to live together. Decisions made intuitively, and influenced by the worker’s relationship with the child and their family.
The perspective of the child as vulnerable and intending no sexual harm to others is stronger the closer the social worker’s relationship with the perpetrator. Social workers allocated to work only with the victim may be more likely to consider the perpetrator as a sexual abuser and therefore less reluctant to consider the possibility of separating the siblings. Likewise the perspective of sibling relationships as non-abusive and of intrinsic value is stronger the more closely the social worker is acquainted with the children as siblings. Social workers may maintain the perspective of parents as well-intentioned protective the more they know and like the parents. Social workers’ expectations of parents may diminish when under pressure of time and resources.
Workers with more specialist experience, still influenced by this mindset, but make more analytical and assessment-based decisions.

17. Decision making around whether or not to separate the siblings based on some simple heuristics
Is this the first incident?
How old is the perpetrator child and are they remorseful?
Did the parent report the incident and are they willing to accept support?

18. Conclusions and Recommendations
No evidence that assessment-based decisions are better than intuitive decisions
Need to hold these important decisions to the highest standards of accountability (Munro 2008)
Raise reflexive awareness of these frames and how they may influence decision making
Impact of the behaviour
Risk
Parents’ capacity to protect
Sibling relationship quality
The views of the children

19. And assess:
The behaviour according to its characteristics rather than those of the child
The (emotional) impact of the behaviour on the children (including listening to the views of the children)
Risk of recurrence
The quality of the sibling relationship
Parents’ capacity to protect
Impact of the behaviour
Risk
Parents’ capacity to protect
Sibling relationship quality
The views of the children

20. Discussion
To what extent do the frames outlined resonate with our own way of looking at the world?
How might we develop and maintain a reflexive awareness of the influence of our frames upon our judgements and decision making, while at the same time engaging in meaningful relationships with families?

21. Dr. Peter Yates Tel: 0131 455 2762 E-mail: p.yates@napier.ac.uk