Sheffield City Council
Derren Hayes
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Intrafamilial sexual abuse case review highlighted poor practice on sharing information between agencies.
- New guidance was developed and series of training events held to identify best practice
- Better recognition of the problem has led to increased referrals to the city's specialist centre
ACTION
The findings of a serious case review (SCR) in 2010 changed the way children and families workers in Sheffield handle intrafamilial sexual abuse cases.
In the "Q Family" case, a Sheffield man was given a life sentence after admitting 25 counts of rape against his two daughters, making them pregnant 18 times over a 25-year period. The review concluded a range of universal and targeted agencies that had worked with the family missed opportunities and collectively failed to protect the children over three decades.
Victoria Horsefield, assistant director - safeguarding and quality assurance at Sheffield City Council, explains the case was dubbed the "Quiet Word" because suspicions voiced by extended family with numerous agencies were not acted upon due to lack of proof.
"A lot of professionals were aware of the rumours about this family but finding hard information was very difficult," Horsefield explains. "It became this ‘quiet word' that circulated."
As a result, Sheffield Safeguarding Children Board undertook a review of procedures for handling suspected intrafamialial sexual abuse concerns, overhauling multi-agency guidance for how to identify suspected cases, record and share information, and understand each agencies' roles and responsibilities. The new guidance is underpinned by a "prevention and protection" approach, says Horsefield, who is also professional adviser to the board.
"Prevention and protection has to be the number one priority," she explains. "There was a fear among some practitioners that if you speak to children and young people directly [about concerns] this could ruin a potential police investigation; that it could be hampered by the questions practitioners asked.
"Even though getting a prosecution is nice, prevention and protection has to come first."
The Q Family case also exposed practitioners' lack of knowledge about intrafamilial abuse: the SCR found professionals thought they could not act unless there was a direct disclosure from the victims themselves.
This was reinforced by a survey of the wider children's workforce - including GPs, health visitors, nursery staff and child protection workers - that found a quarter of the 1,013 practitioners who responded were "not very confident" in recognising the signs of child sexual abuse (CSA).
To address this, the board has run training days looking at aspects of CSA. In 2016, the board also undertook a themed audit day on intrafamilial sexual abuse. Around a dozen senior safeguarding managers across a range of agencies reviewed five relevant cases assessing the decision-making of frontline practitioners. In groups of two or three the auditors spoke to all the practitioners involved in individual cases, using an Appreciative Inquiry approach to identify good practice and areas for improvement.
At the end, the auditors came together to compare learning from the five cases and identify common themes. Key findings included the need for practitioners to reinforce their belief of the child, as in cases where this happened there was a positive impact on a child's confidence. Reinforcing this with parents and carers, and challenging attempts to minimise concerns, also helped change parents' views and understanding. Good multi-agency working also helped identify when parents were not being honest or open. The audit also underlined the vital role of schools in providing insight about the family and support for children.
Horsefield says the audit highlighted the importance of developing a "challenge culture" among professionals.
"Often people don't challenge because they think someone else is more senior or experienced than them, she says. "Challenging professionals' and other people's views is a healthy part of protecting children. If that had happened in the Q Family case I think it would have made a difference."
IMPACT
The impact on working practices from the area's focus on intrafamilial sexual abuse is hard to gauge, admits Horsfield.
"The board has done a lot of training and developed procedures but the responsibility for embedding this into practice lies with agencies," she says.
"There is now good awareness of the issue, knowledge of good practice and resources, but what we haven't seen is any rise in child protection plans because of sexual abuse. Maybe that is because work is being done at an earlier stage."
However, she says that following the conference on child sexual abuse "there was a huge spike in referrals to the referral centre".
This article is part of CYP Now's special report on intrafamilial abuse. Click here for more