In the article in \”Vroue Keur\” on social workers the heading is the \”kindervangers\” - the child-catchers and it is with a deep disappointment and some frustration that I read the heading and the article. The article points at some deficiency in the social work service delivering system.
The article has two sections. In the first section the stories of two mothers have been told. The two social workers involved did not comment. And I am glad. We should not throw stones. On face value, it seems that there could have been communication problems. It is every social worker\’s duty to do everything in her might to return a child to her mother if circumstances permit. Something went wrong and the mother\’s visiting rights have been suspended. In practice this very seldom happens and only for a very good reason.
The ideal relationship between the foster mother and the biological mother should be one of goodwill, in which case the foster mother and the social worker will agree to visiting times suitable to the biological mother. The biological mother should not feel threatened by foster placement, she should see it as a help situation. If the roles are correctly fullfilled and understood, the mother and foster mother could become professional friends, respecting each other to ensure the well-being of the child. It is not clear why the mother did not visit the child for a whole year. Why did she not continue visiting her child in the social worker\’s office? Family re-unification is a process and the parent must co-operate. There are too many facts missing in the story of the mother. I would like to know what the outcome will be if Jo could go to the social worker and say to her \”I have pulled myself together, I am a responsible person, I have my child\’s well-being at heart, help me get my child back. I will give all the co-operation needed. Give me time to visit my child at the foster parent and get to know her and then please consider returning her to my care\”.
What concerns me, are the statements in the seond section, that social workers have too much work and cannot deliver the service needed. As a result of the work overload it is said, it then happens that a child is unnecesarrily being removed. I cannot agree with that statement. This should be the exception and not the rule. I hope the statement is not a referral to Jo\’s case because too little information is available. Many people are involved in the removal of a child, the social worker, her supervisonr, the canalising officer (in some areas) and/or a panel. If the family preservation model is being followed there would also have been a family/community conference. The final decision lies by the Commissioner of Child Welfare. In the hearing the parent gets a chance to state her case and the social worker must convince the Commissioner that the mother is not in a positionn to care for her child. A care plan is then formulated, put into place and every effort must be made to place the child back within two years.
The article gives the idea that because of too much work, mistakes are being made. It is not a good reflection on social wokers and their services. I wonder what my fellow social workers have to say.