1. Thinking About Emotional Risks More Inclusively?
Simon Haworth
University of Birmingham
@SiHaworth or

2. Definition of Emotional Abuse
So, as in the Children Act 1989, emotional abuse is defined as:
‘the persistent emotional maltreatment of the child such as to cause severe and persistent adverse effects on the child’s emotional development…’
The words persistent and severe are of importance in this definition, meaning that the risk of emotional abuse should incorporate concepts of severity and persistence. In other words, future risk needs to be significant in terms of probability and severity?

3. The prospect of Emotional Neglect…
In official definitions of neglect:
‘…It (neglect) may also include neglect of, or unresponsiveness, to a child’s basic emotional needs’. (Working Together Guidance, 2018)
This then starts to expand the scope of emotional harm, to include lack of attention, nurturing, caring, supervision and guidance, and protection of children. A far broader brush than the severity and persistence that should be key to the understanding of emotional abuse.
Perhaps for the discussions today, this is where the greatest concern may lie in terms of punitive or oppressive practice?

4. Is social work focusing on risk to the exclusion of need?
Child protection practice has seemingly become intensely focused upon risk to the exclusion of support and meeting needs. In the words of Gupta and Featherstone (2015) in the UK we have ‘…a child protection project that is characterised by muscular authoritarianism towards multiply deprived families’.
Sometimes, by focussing on the identification of risk as a certainty, social work can exclude alternative views or positions about ‘risk’ that may challenge. Then the inherent disconnect between risk of potential future harm and actual events of child harm occurring can be forgotten.
Practice processes can then contribute to the probability of emotional harm being treated as a given and fixed entity. In court, this can be reinforced through the opinions of experts such as psychologists, who tend towards an individualising narrative that excludes wider social forces.

5. And what of other Future Risks?
We must always consider the emotional harm involved in removal of children to alternative care, or the emotional risks to families of being involved with CP services.
And we must consider the risk of emotional harm to whole families when children are removed from their birth families.
There is inherent emotional harm in this, that can be compounded by further social sanctions, such as loss of accommodation, benefits, stigma and much more.
As Carolan et al (2010) state ‘It is impossible to describe and capture the extent of the emotional devastation that is involved in…permanent removal and loss of custody of your children’.

6. What does this mean for social work practice?
Effective assessments and analysis of ‘risk of emotional harm’ must be based upon principles of partnership, communication and collaborative working, and valuing the knowledge of family members. Trust must be central to this?
However, we have become more risk-averse and less risk-tolerant in CP social work. Practice that is valued and experienced as supportive is more risk-tolerant and relationship-based, focussed on holistic needs and strengths as well as potential risks.
But this involves embracing uncertainty/ambiguity, so the role of social workers own emotions and risks of ‘emotional harm’ are influential. Managing anxiety is key to confident approaches to working with risks, high on care and empathy, and avoiding disproportionately authoritarian and control dominated social work responses, short on care and empathy.

7. Some questions I would like to pose…
Do the current debates questioning whether social work is supportive and protective, or punitive and repressive, need to frame discussions on future risk of emotional harm, or is this too simple?
How can assessments and judgements more effectively and respectfully consider the probability of future emotional harm, its likely severity and impacts for children? How can we return to being confident with safe uncertainty?
How can we move from a system where the assessment of risk of emotional harm is the domain of professionals to a more collaborative approach where families can effectively play their part in assessing and managing such risks?

8. Sources:
Dale, P., (2004) ‘Like A Fish in a Bowl: Parents’ Perceptions of Child Protection Services’. Child Abuse Review. 13: pp
Gupta, A. & Featherstone, B. (2015) ‘What about my dad? Black fathers and the child protection system’. Critical and Radical Social Work. 4(1): pp
Mason, B., (1993) ‘Towards Positions of Safe Uncertainty’. Human Systems: The Journal of Systemic Consultation & Management. 4: pp
Warner, J. (2015) The Emotional Politics of Social Work and Child Protection. Bristol, Policy Press.
Wilkins, D. ‘Balancing Risk and Protective Factors: How Do Social Workers and Social Work Managers Analyse Referrals that May Indicate Children Are at Risk of Significant Harm’. British Journal of Social Work. 45: pp

9. That’s it from me, so over to Annie:
@SiHaworth