Prerrogativas de la Administración

The LSCB procedures that covered the host agency in which the phase 3 fieldwork took place were accessed as part of this phase 2 documentary analysis stage and, therefore, general findings from them are incorporated in the above results. With regard to their actual content, the LSCB procedures covering the host LA area contained a reference to the procedures relating to pre-birth assessment in the format of a web link to the two paragraphs contained in Working Together (HM Government 2006). During my time based in the host LA gathering data I checked the procedures several times but no additional information was added with regard to pre-birth assessment.

103

The host agency’s LSCB derived procedures were an example of a LSCB which had joined forces with other geographically close LSCBs in relation to the production of procedures which reflected local need. The procedures were in electronic format and could only be accessed from a computer that had access to the Internet. The LSCB had issued information in the form of emails, letters and visits by staff from the safeguarding unit to teams and departments to all agencies about the use of the electronic procedures. This guidance explained how to search the electronic procedures and outlined the importance of discarding any previous paper based procedures as these would not continue to be updated and would not, therefore, reflect the up- to-date electronic guidance.

During my time spent in the host LA administration staff and professionals from other agencies advised me that the electronic procedures caused some agencies and individuals particular difficulties. One area of difficulty related to concerns that not everyone who may need to access the procedures had the level of computer literacy needed to search the system. However, a more significant concern related to physical access to the Internet in the working environment. The electronic procedures covered a wide geographical area which contained several prisons and hospitals. I was advised prison staff had limited access to the Internet as a result of the high security levels and hospital staff did not always have access to a computer in their work setting, or if they did the computer was used for patient records and linked to hospital systems only. There had been discussion with regard to supplying procedures in a paper format or on a CD, however, the LSCB had decided against this on the basis of not being able to update procedures. During the time I gathered data from the host LA I was not aware of a resolution to this difficulty.

5.7 Conclusion

The documentary analysis of LSCB procedures began with an expectation that there would, at the very least, be a replication of the content contained in Working Together (HM Government 2006). However, I also expected that the LSCB procedures would say more about pre-birth assessment and intervention, partly because of the need to reflect local demography.

In 2008, when I accessed the procedures, LSCBs were relatively newly established, having replaced the former Area Child Protection Committees two years previously. The documentary analysis indicated that some LSCBs had joined forces in the process of producing guidance, resulting in the 144 LSCBs being covered by 73 sets of procedural guidance. With regard to Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the data tool, (which relate to the extent to which pre-birth assessment is mentioned) I found that the majority of procedures at least made some

104

reference to unborn children with only 7 (10%) of the total 73 sets of procedures making no reference at all. 66 (90%) of the procedures indicated that they applied to unborn children but the extent to which comment was made varied and focus was predominantly on procedural issues such as when and how to make referrals and time scales for child protection conferences. A direct quantifiable comparison of the amount of space allocated in each set of procedures to unborn children was not possible due to the differing formats of the information. However, I was able to identify variations that ranged from a direct quote of paragraphs 5.14 and 5.140 of Working Together (HM Government 2006) to one set of procedures which contained 19 A4 pages of relevant information. What emerged in the procedures that did provide additional information was that the language of well-being and working with need permeated the procedures. This was in line with the legal framework of the Children Acts 1989 and 2004 which embody notions of working in partnership with parents and procedures which focus on health and wellbeing and not simply on child protection.

With regard to the distinction between pre and post-birth assessment (Question 5 on the data tool) I found 17 sets of procedures (26% of the 66 sets of procedures making reference to unborn children) made reference to why a pre-birth referral to a LA may be appropriate. With regard to actual assessment following referral, 13 sets of procedures (20% of the 66 sets of procedures making reference to unborn children) made reference to the process of pre-birth assessment with three of these making reference to Calder’s (2003) model (see Chapter 2 for an outline of this model). It was interesting to note that Northumberland who, following their involvement with Fran Lyon became the subject of media attention, was one of the LSCBs who offered additional guidance on pre-birth assessment.

In relation to Questions 6 and 7 of the data tool (looking the lack of legal status of the feuts and the rights of the pregnant woman) what was noteworthy was that where any reference was made to any form of pre-birth assessment or intervention the terminology used was ‘unborn child’ or ‘unborn baby’ rather than fetus. As indicated in Chapter 4, Working Together (HM Government 2006) used the term ‘unborn child’ and so the terminology used in the LSCB procedures may be a direct result of the national guidance, however it may also be because those writing local procedures have not given thought to the terminology. As indicated in Chapter 4, the legal and procedural basis for pre-birth assessment contains several ambiguities with the unborn child having no legal status whilst Working Together (HM Government 2006) contains explicit statements that procedures that applied to a child could be readily applied to the unborn child (paragraphs 5.14 and 5.140). The documentary analysis demonstrated that this perhaps inappropriate certainty at a national level had been translated, and in some cases built on, at LSCB level. In the process of attempting to add clarity by adding to the statutory guidance it was evident that pre-birth assessment guidance was

105

evolving without consideration of the ethical, moral or practical considerations linked to the unique relationship between a pregnant woman and her unborn child.

The final question on the data tool related to timescales and here it was found that 27 sets of procedures (41% of those making any reference at all to unborn children) had a specific timescale for referral or the child protection conference. Focus was on procedural issues surrounding timescale with only Durham and North Yorkshire making reference the impact early assessment may have on the family. North Yorkshire’s procedures are particularly interesting in that they venture into the ethical grounds surrounding the lack of legal status of the child and the rights of the mother and comment that information available to professionals should not be shared with the pregnant woman if doing so may result in the termination of the pregnancy. In doing so North Yorkshire’s procedures highlight how LSCBs, when attempting to add clarity without consideration of the legal issues identified in Chapter 4, can serve to potentially contravene maternal rights.

In conclusion, the documentary analysis has highlighted that, the majority of procedures at the very least follow the guidance contained in Working Together (HM Government 2006). However, where this guidance was built upon with additional guidance the LSCBs tended to focus on procedure and build on the anomalies inherent within the legal and statutory guidance framework. The language of promoting the well-being of unborn children was present but how to achieve this within the context of maternal rights was not considered within any of the LSCB guidance.

Having looked at pre-birth assessment work from something of a contextual, macro-level in phases 1 and 2 of the research, my focus turned to pursuing a more in-depth extended case study of policy and practice in one LA, phase 3 of the research design. However, before presenting the results of that phase, in chapter 6, a reflective account is provided of my experience of being in the host agency and how aspects of its organisation and other developments impacted on my fieldwork.

106

Chapter 6