f) How capable each of his parents and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs
Due to a longstanding dysfunctional marriage, Mrs E and Mr D had separated and lived at different addresses. Mrs E and Mr D are both parents with PR (Children Act 1989) to three children aged 3 (child C), 6 (child B) and 14 (child A) who resided with their mother and had contact with their father. Due to the nature of their relationship, Mrs E and Mr D struggled to communicate effectively and appropriately. As a result, contact arrangements were challenging and often left to child A to mediate. This would inevitably lead to confusion and miscommunication around what time the children were to be …show more content…
I tried to incorporate the Signs of Safety Mapping with Mr D, however very quickly, it became clear he was not yet ready to focus on a solution regarding how his children’s best interest would benefit from changes in his behaviour. He was able to voice how he felt his children were suffering in the care of their mother and was able to identify how her behaviour had negatively impacted the children. Similarly, he was able to understand how witnessing parental conflict is harmful for children, however was unable to accept how he had contributed to exposing the children to parental conflict. This made completing the mapping re ‘what’s working well’, ‘what we’re worried’ about and ‘what needs to happen next’ completely impossible. Therefore it appeared the Signs of Safety model was not necessarily appropriate with Mr D. However due to his lack of insight, meant it was challenging to employ any method or …show more content…
However due to his lack of insight, meant it was challenging to employ any method or model. Therefore I chose to continue to incorporate the Signs of Safety principles loosely. I encouraged him to voice his expertise in his own situation and voice any safeguarding concerns he had. What became clear after months of correspondence, was Mr D remained to have no insight into his behaviour and how he had negatively impacted the children. This made a solution-focussed approach very challenging as Mr D was unable to identify the true problem which required a solution. This impacted my assessment and recommendations as it evidenced Mr D’s competency and understanding around his children’s needs and welfare. Without being able to accept his behaviour needed changing, no improvements could be made to ensure the children would be safe from emotional harm in his care. I found this particularly challenging as I felt Mr D was completely capable of meeting the children’s basic care needs, such as ensuring they were well clothed, fed, educated and stimulated. However his lacking insight into how his behaviour impacted their emotional wellbeing was too significant to ignore. What this assessment method did however support me with, was my risk assessment (Maclean and Harrison, 2008). By encouraging Mr D to voice his expertise and understanding around the children’s best-interest, it provided me with a