Children Act well-intentioned duty now unrealistic

There is no obvious answer, but there is a repetitive wheel I find myself treading - again and again.

I start to think about what the Children Act 1989 requires me to do.

It sets out that I must observe the principle "that children are best looked after within the family with both parents playing a full part and without resort to legal proceedings". I believe in this central philosophy of the act.

I must also be clear if I am to intervene, that it is right for the child and that not doing so will cause harm or further harm to them. In accordance with section 17 of the act therefore, I have a duty to support families when they need it and to provide a range of services in support of their welfare. I must make sure that the local authority withdraws again when parents are able to safely discharge their parental responsibilities to their children, standing ready to provide help again during any future period of need.

I am a leader in a system fully preoccupied with intervening in family life. Most of my social work resource and capacity is invested in doing the best we can to protect children and promote their welfare - but it is formal intervention whether by assessment, processing support for children in need, child protection enquiries, pre-proceedings or full care proceedings.

We cannot support children in need - as the act intended - unless there is proper provision and support from government, and I believe it has to come as protected resource for us and our partners to help early - that is what delivering to children in need in 2017 and beyond will take.

Recently, the Association of Directors of Children's Services called for a review of section 17. With our resources and capacity tied up in formal interventions, we are unable to cover the responsibilities given to us for families and children who are vulnerable to harm but who are not being significantly harmed. Our concerns on this extend to frontline practitioners who even in the strongest and highest performing authorities say that they do not have enough time to work with families.

This well-intended duty needs to be reviewed because it is now unrealistic. We cannot meet the demands of section 17, yet we are inspected against that expectation.

Any such review needs to result in strengthened and statutory responsibilities for multi-agency early help. Further, section 17 needs to be re-designated so that the children to whom it refers are those who without the support of social workers are likely to be at risk of harm rather than the current designation which is that their development is likely to be impaired.

The wheel has stopped, it's time for my next meeting.

Jacky Tiotto is director of children's services at Bexley Council