Abstract
This paper concerns parenting assessments which are integral to child-safeguarding professional processes in England, and which involve Deaf parents whose primary language is British Sign Language (BSL). In an under-researched area of social work, the research aim was to contribute to the existing literature by eliciting the practice wisdom of specialist professionals. Specifically, it draws upon their linguistic and cultural knowledge of the Deaf community when they are involved in parenting assessments with Deaf parents who are subject to safeguarding concerns. Data about these professionals’ actual experiences of navigating Deaf cultural-competency in contemporary child protection practices were collected through seven video-recorded, semi-structured interviews conducted in BSL. Using interpretive phenomenological analysis, data were analysed in their source language (BSL). This article focusses on one key theme, termed ‘Professional Recognition’, which incorporates a) the identification of specialist roles and b) the impact of referral processes and protocols on assessment outcomes. The findings highlight participants’ perspectives on the benefits and disadvantages of their specialist role in this context. Although their brokerage skills, cultural competence, linguistic fluency and specialist knowledge of the Deaf community are highly regarded and valued by some colleagues, there is insufficient recognition of their existence by the majority. Secondly, participants are concerned by the inefficiency and inconsistency of the referral processes and protocols which they consider have adverse effects on assessment outcomes, and consequently the parents involved. The BSL translation of this article is available in the supplementary material.
Keywords
Introduction
This article concerns Deaf people who are users of a signed language; in the context of England, British Sign Language (BSL). It focusses on parenting assessments, which are a part of child-safeguarding practices when a child or family comes to the attention of a statutory child protection service, specifically in the circumstance of one or more parent being Deaf. As a qualified, registered and culturally Deaf social worker who uses BSL as my primary language, I 1 have observed during my work around child protection and within judicial processes (Family Courts in England) that the number of child removals relating to Deaf parents and child protection is notably high. Research evidence including statistical data is sparse; however, one rare example identifies that ‘parents who are deaf or blind report extremely high rates of child removal and loss of parental rights’ (National Council on Disability, 2012: p.17).
This article relates to one study within a larger project that has sought to explore the contribution to the rates of child removal of cultural competence and cross-linguistic challenges in parenting assessments with Deaf parents (ES/P000655/1). We present findings from a qualitative interview study with social work practitioners, both Deaf and hearing, who are experienced in working with Deaf families and child protection and able to comment on the practice of parenting assessment with them.
Background
Context setting
The study reported here revolves around Deaf parents, members of a community of approximately 73,000 to 127,000 people in England (British Deaf Association, 2022), who hold a strong Deaf identity centred around their own culture and the use of BSL as their first language, including those hearing children born into Deaf families. The capital D is conventionally used to refer to this cultural linguistic minority, which has a shared historical and cultural tradition in its own right (Ladd, 2003), in order to distinguish them from the larger population of people who experience hearing loss and use spoken language (Padden & Humphries, 1988). This distinction can be applied across the world, relating to any country which has one or more sign languages used specifically by a minority within its population.
Although Deaf people view themselves as a linguistic-cultural minority, this is not always recognised or understood by the hearing majority, who categorise them as ‘disabled’, for example, people who cannot hear, rather than as a separate community with their own language and culture (Padden & Humphries, 1988). This lack of knowledge can result in miscommunication and misunderstandings. Professionals might not be as aware of the need to educate themselves about this linguistic-cultural minority because they can appear less visible than other minority groups, for example, those who wear particular clothing or use a spoken language other than English. From the point of view of the Equality Act, 2010 in the UK, Deaf people fall under the protected characteristic of disability rather than being distinguished for their cultural identity. It was only in 2022 that legislation was finally passed in the UK recognising rights on grounds of language (BSL Act, 2022).
BSL is a visual spatial language with its own grammar and syntax (Sutton-Spence & Woll, 1998) which combines facial expressions, specific handshapes and movements. It is distinct from English. To be able to communicate in BSL with non-signing people, a qualified interpreter is often employed. The hearing majority do not always recognise that English can be very much a second language for some Deaf people, to the extent they would require assistance to understand any written information (Mayer & Trezek, 2018).
For child-safeguarding processes in England, any concerns relating to child protection across all communities are the responsibility of the Children’s Services within social services, in accordance with the Children Act (1989) and 2004. Employed by local government or Local Authorities (LAs), they have a legal duty to respond to concerns which have been raised in order to protect any child at risk of harm. Section 17 and 47 of the 1989 Act require a parenting assessment, that is, a detailed community-based assessment designed to identify potential risks of abuse or neglect to the child and the capacity of parents to protect children from harm. The mandatory risk assessment is carried out by a qualified social worker and relies on information gathered from the child, their parents and extended family, as well as the relevant professional network, for example, the police or school, under Section 11 of the 2004 Act (Children Act, 2004). The process can vary depending on the degree of safeguarding concern, beginning with initial contact, passing through a series of assessments for more serious cases and in some situations culminating in a Family Court hearing.
Social work with Deaf people
There are specialist professionals whom the Children’s Services may call upon for their support and expertise in certain situations. In the context of working with Deaf parents, the term ‘specialist professional’ has often referred to the role of Social Worker with Deaf People (SWDP) who may also be employed within the LA or under contract to a local Deaf Organisation, and who provides community-based social care support and language services. Designated specialists are expected to have a wide knowledge of the Deaf community, as well as possessing fluency in BSL, typically drawn from their longstanding experience of working with this community in a professional capacity (or from growing up within that community themselves) (Parratt, 2010).
Coinciding with the disaggregation of Adult and Children’s Services (Young et al., 2010), an SWDP was no longer deemed mandatory in some LAs, the role being integrated within Children’s Services, Adult Services or disability teams. Significant concerns about the dilution of the specialist provision were raised, with subsequent research demonstrating barriers to specialist assessment and provision for deaf children and adults who were BSL users (Young et al., 2015) and a lack of clarity of safeguarding multiagency pathways with respect to d/Deaf parents (Wilson et al., 2018).
Consequently, depending on their geographical location, a Deaf person may now receive social work support, if not directly from an SWDP, then from either i) a mainstream social worker (usually working with an interpreter) or ii) a mainstream social worker co-working with an SWDP, although this is rare in practice as not all LAs have an SWDP or are aware of such specialists being available. ‘Mainstream social worker’ is a term used to indicate a hearing professional drawn usually from a Children’s Services team who may not have met or worked with a member of the Deaf community before and who is, therefore, unlikely to have specialised training or experience of communicating with this linguistic-cultural minority, or to recognise their distinction from the broader category of ‘disabled’ people. There has been a history of service provision for Deaf people where the social model of disability is applied in assessments, rather than the cultural linguistic model (Corker, 1998), impacting on the support and rights of Deaf people (Ladd, 2003).
Parenting assessment, Deaf parents and child safeguarding
A literature search of the publication year range 2000–2018 via PsycINFO, AISSA and PubMed using key terms ‘sign language’ and ‘child protection’ and their synonyms, with suitable Boolean operators, found no published research specifically addressing the topic of parenting assessments and child safeguarding involving Deaf parents, whether in the UK or internationally. A small amount of published work exists concerning deaf children and child safeguarding (e.g. Anderson et al., 2016; Wilson et al., 2018) with a strong focus on why deaf children might be more vulnerable to abuse and the lack of understanding of deaf children’s needs. However, this work does not address Deaf parents within the safeguarding system, their rights or requirements for support. Material relating specifically to a Deaf parent’s perspective on safeguarding processes when there were child-safeguarding concerns is non-existent. A second search sought to identify empirical work in the context of child protection which incorporated cultural and/or linguistic minority communities, where English might not be the first language, and parenting assessment practices within safeguarding, across languages and cultures. However, it yielded very few results with any degree of relevance to the study topic. Two articles (Barn, 2002; Fazil et al., 2002) included some broad reflections on the importance of culture and/or language to parents whose language differed from that of their social workers. More specifically, Welbourne’s (2002) research considered the impact of language use and cultural values when discussing concepts of child abuse, arguably derived from a majority-culture perspective. However, none of the results involved discussion with Deaf parents.
Methodology and methods
Research aims and objectives
Given the lack of directly relevant research literature concerning the practice of parenting assessment with Deaf parents within child protection services, this study set out to engage current practitioners to generate an evidence base for the first time. The formal research aim is expressed as follows: To elicit from specialised social workers their practice wisdom and actual experience of involvement in parenting assessments with Deaf parents, with a view to filling gaps in the available published literature.
The research objectives are the following: To draw on practitioner knowledge about approaches currently being used when working with Deaf parents where parenting capacity assessments are concerned, with a view to establishing best practice. To supplement the existing literature with expert experience in order to inform subsequent phases of the wider research study [not reported in this article].
Methodological approach
I adopted an expert informant approach (Taylor & Blake, 2015: p.153) in order to seek current practice wisdom (Lokot, 2021) in the area of child safeguarding and Deaf parenting assessment because, although there was little published evidence, I was aware from my own practitioner knowledge that there was nonetheless considerable expertise. Drawing on Schon’s work (1983) on reflective practitioners, I chose an oral history approach as the basis for the individual interviews, allowing participants the opportunity to process and reflect on their practice experiences in a way which enables multiple layers of meaning and interpretation (Abrams, 2016).
Recruitment and sampling
Ethical approval was granted by the University of Manchester. Through my professional networks and contacts, I utilised a purposive sampling procedure (Patton, 2002) seeking participants with a minimum of 5 years’ experience in a specialised role involving child protection and Deaf parents, who also had a good degree of fluency in BSL. Potential participants were approached via email, using the snowballing technique (Morgan, 2008) which led to approaching people from a range of specialised roles and produced a final sample of seven participants who agreed to be interviewed, exceeding my anticipated target of five.
Data collection
Individual semi-structured interviews were carried out in person (not remotely), at a location of the participant’s choice, each of which lasted over an hour. They were conducted in BSL (with no interpreter required) and video-recorded using two cameras to enable the data to be fully captured in its original format, preserving the richness of the visual language.
Data analysis
Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was selected to guide the data analysis process because it allows for in-depth exploration of participants’ perceptions of experiences, steered by what they deem significant (Smith et al., 2009). It permitted me to actively account for and use my own professional background within a double hermeneutic process (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). As a culturally Deaf, qualified registered social worker, with extensive experience of working with Deaf people, I was mindful that my characteristics and experience could potentially influence all stages of the data process, including recruitment, interview execution and interpretation of data (Ho et al., 2017). IPA foregrounds these influences in data analysis and reporting, seeing them as positive components of analysis rather than unhelpful bias, provided they are explicitly accounted for (Rodham et al., 2015). The diligent use of a step-wise analytical process (Smith et al., 2009) with a predetermined timescale helped me to maintain a disciplined approach, by recording each stage of my reflexive process, from initial reactions to later reflections.
Throughout the analysis process, I viewed the original video data repeatedly. As a native BSL signer, I could minimise the risk of losing the subtleties of what participants are saying by keeping the data in its source language. Preserving the finer details – for example, the lexical choice of signs, including handshapes; the degree of emotion expressed through facial expressions and/or body language; and other paralinguistic or non-manual features – is vital for the cultural aspect of any language. My priority was to represent fully the data from participants seen through their source language (Temple & Young, 2004). As Ladd (2003) explains, research findings will ultimately be in written text so there is a potential risk of semantic loss if the source language is not respected.
The choice of analytical approach allowed me to be reflexive and highlight the complexities in expressing something in English (even if the translation from BSL is good) because as a Deaf person, researcher and social worker, I can read multiple layers into what an individual signs from a cultural perspective, which is difficult to reproduce in written English. I also used reference notes in QSR NVivo 12 to record my reflexive standpoint. The software assisted the coding process, allowing themes to be arranged in a tabulated form with participants listed in columns (anonymised through ID numbers), thereby facilitating comparison and identification of patterns. Care was required to avoid losing the context in the analysis of long accounts, which is a risk associated with coding (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996).
Participant characteristics
All seven participants were employed in a specialist role, with between seven and thirty years’ experience of working with d/Deaf people. Six of them were d/Deaf, and all of them used BSL to a high standard; for some it is their native language. Four were qualified social workers. One person had remained in the same role since qualification within a Local Authority (LA) but under a different team. Of the five who worked part-time, four of them undertook different work elsewhere, such as independent child protection, work in non-specialist teams and in relation to mental health services. 2
Findings
The interview analysis, overall, resolved into five main themes: Professional Recognition, Organisational System (social services), Parenting Assessment Process, Concept of Deaf Parenting and Family and Social Work Dynamics. This article focuses solely on Theme One, Professional Recognition, which consists of two sub-themes covering (i) specialist identification – exploring who is deemed to be a specialist; which specialist roles might be brought into safeguarding procedures and what specialist skills and/or attributes they contribute in their work, and (ii) referral systems for specialist work involving Deaf parents where there is a child-safeguarding concern, including at what stage, if at all, they are brought into the process and the implications of their involvement at an earlier or later stage. Other themes will be the subject of further publications.
Specialist identification
First point of contact
In child-safeguarding situations where one or more parent is Deaf, most participants noted that sign language interpreters are usually the first contact considered by mainstream social workers, despite their role only being that of facilitating communication, rather than imparting any specialist knowledge concerning culture or community. However, several participants offered examples where interpreters then recommended that a different specialist professional was also required, for example, an SWDP, advocate, intermediary or Deaf Relay Interpreter. On some occasions, the interpreter took it upon themselves to contact specialists informally due to concerns that Deaf parents whom they had worked with might require specialist support to ensure they were kept fully informed and involved in the mainstream decision-making processes. They were not confident the social worker involved would do this. Participants recalled that when said specialist input was available, interpreters felt more at ease as they were not required to offer in-depth cultural brokerage, a responsibility beyond their remit. The interpreter made a referral for an advocate to work with the client when they realised the job became too much for them as they were struggling (to stay in their role) (S5).
Participants also noted that, increasingly, courts were appointing specialists, not only SWDPs but also advocates and intermediaries, to work independently with Deaf parents. Few mainstream social workers would be aware of this emphasis as the vast majority would not have had previous experience of Deaf parents and safeguarding.
Specialist roles
No formal definition exists for many of the specialist roles potentially involved in child protection and safeguarding, except for SWDP; therefore, participants shared what their role involved and knowledge they had gleaned from working alongside other specialists. In line with national child-safeguarding legislation and guidance, any specialist is expected to have undergone relevant training and have an enhanced level check of their criminal record history through the government-run Disclosure and Barring Service.
Advocates: Advocacy is a key task for various specialist professionals; however, there is also a specific role known as an advocate. As the majority of their work is with members of the Deaf community for whom English is not their first language, advocates lobby for the clients’ right to access information in a way they can understand. Participants described working between two languages and engaging in language advocacy work, which involves translating concepts, offering clarifying examples and ensuring clients have the opportunity to express their emotions, viewpoints and level of understanding. This was especially crucial in situations where many of the concepts associated with safeguarding might themselves be unknown to Deaf parents.
Intermediaries: Some participants recognised the profession of intermediary as an important role, especially in court. Intermediaries were described as communication facilitators between Deaf people (of all backgrounds and ages) and legal professionals in a variety of contexts, including family law. Their priority is to establish rapport with the Deaf client and formally assess their language and cognitive skills. The role offers a degree of influence as intermediaries can access case reports from the court, and even strongly recommend the need for a second opinion from someone who has professional expertise with regard to Deaf people, if they believe the court report does not accurately represent the events in the case. In participants’ experience this kind of professional is involved much later in the safeguarding process, rather than initially, but nonetheless contributes vital information to any assessment of parenting capacity.
Deaf Relay Interpreters: Deaf Interpreters work with hearing interpreters to provide communication support in situations where Deaf people may have a different level of BSL or use a different national sign language. Examples include individuals with different communication needs, for example, deafblind people who require hand-under-hand signing (Sense, 2023), or Deaf people who use sign languages from different countries. Deaf Interpreters are often seen in Family Court or working with the police when Deaf people are involved rather than alongside mainstream social workers, yet they are vital in cases where, for example, a Deaf parent may be a refugee and living in the community.
All participants identified that cultural equivalence was a vital component in any assessment, not just linguistic access, and concurred that people in specialist roles usually show a thorough understanding of Deaf people’s cultural needs alongside high-level communication skills, which they specify as ‘BSL fluency’. They viewed this degree of linguistic and cultural competency, which mainstream professionals are unlikely to possess, as extremely advantageous in the context of working with Deaf people. From their perspective, it should be a mandatory requirement for working with this community at all stages of the child protection process. Giving the right support is vital as it is all about empowering clients and they need cultural equivalence too in their own right to help them make decisions – that has to be someone specialised (S6).
In summary, although mainstream social workers primarily recruit interpreters when faced with evaluations involving Deaf parents, participants emphasised strongly that this was not sufficient and might be in fact be detrimental. There are also people operating in various specialist roles who can be utilised and who perhaps should be utilised by preference. These specialists all shared BSL fluency, linguistic brokerage skills and cultural competence, providing different aspects of support and enabling different facets of understanding in a complex situation. Some participants noted that the contributions of advocates and intermediaries are increasingly being recognised by both the LAs and legal teams in the context of child protection situations involving Deaf parents, alongside the more established SWDP role.
Referrals for specialist work
Participants reflected on sources of referrals for specialist work, at what point in the safeguarding process they occur and the benefits or constraints of joining the process at different stages. They raised four key issues about the potential inadequacies of the referral systems that meant Deaf clients were not necessarily assessed in a linguistically or culturally accessible manner, nor with the benefits that a specialist brings to the process.
Referrals within the LA system
The first issue concerned the structure of the referral system, which means complexities are not consistently flagged early on. In a prime example, a number of participants expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the multi-agency duty system, which is the shared responsibility of local safeguarding partners (SWDCP, 2022), the police and health agencies to act as a first point of contact for social service referrals. Participants felt this approach made little difference with regard to Deaf-related queries because in their experience, referrals that involved Deaf parents had been given directly to Children & Families (C&F) Teams and allocated based solely on an individual social worker’s availability, without any apparent consideration of appropriate skills and experience. According to participants, referrals may be passed to different teams within Children’s Services, not all of whom are even aware of the existence of specialist individuals (or teams) who could be approached to co-work on a case and contribute their knowledge of working with Deaf people. Now we have had a Duty Team for the last 10 years. I think nothing much has changed since for the better-it is still very weak in this area and that is scary because there are no appropriate measures in place (S1).
Several participants described scenarios where this resulted in C&F social workers visiting Deaf parents alone, without any linguistic support, meaning mutual communication was highly constrained – which is a questionable decision given the sensitivities of the situation. Another participant provided an example of good practice that they had experienced working in a duty team where, due to their own cultural knowledge and with support from their team manager, any Deaf-related referrals were allocated to their local SWDP in the first instance. However, that is a rare occurrence elsewhere.
One long-serving individual explained a singular exception where, due to the chance occurrence that they were in the same building as a colleague of the case’s designated C&F Social Worker who was seeking advice, they were asked to participate in a joint visit. It was word of mouth about me and that was how the Children Social Worker got in touch with me, though still some teams don’t know who I am or what I do (S1).
With those few exceptions, all participants stated that their involvement usually occurred later in the safeguarding process, when a core assessment may already have been completed. Some participants stated that referrals did not usually involve Deaf Services or an SWDP until the C&F department realised the complexity of the case, following significant communication difficulties with the parents involved, regardless of whether an interpreter was provided or not. At that point the mainstream team might seek external support, drawing on the expertise that a specialised professional could offer in resolving the cultural and linguistic barriers. However, by that point, the Deaf parents involved had usually not had a satisfactory opportunity to be fully involved in the assessment or even fully understand the issues of concern being raised. Time is of the essence and I usually come in later in the case when the social worker realises it is more complicated [than they had appreciated] (S6).
Consequently, participants have found that often they must spend time revisiting the initial work between mainstream professionals and parents first, taking any remedial or additional actions required to ensure that parents understand why there is a child protection concern, and that the assessment paperwork accurately reflects parental contributions to date. This situation is further exacerbated when cases are handed over between social workers, often from one with little prior experience of Deaf culture and language to another, also without such experience. With the Care Act in place but with service cuts, professionals are being employed without the appropriate skills-base. Where is our voice for SWDPs and Deaf parents? (S3)
Participants identified a third issue around the implications of recent social work reforms within the C&F Services involving Deaf parents: social workers can find themselves under intense pressure to close a case as quickly as possible due to the extent of their workload. Procedural time constraints can prevent them from receiving the necessary training to recognise the cultural issues that should be considered, if no specialist is involved. Yet in reality, specialist practitioners actually save time in progressing a case because of their cultural and linguistic knowledge.
The fourth issue addressed the timing of when referrals are made for specialist support or intervention work, which, as mentioned, may vary due to the limited availability of in-house specialists. Some participants recognised the exacerbating problem of inconsistency in LAs across England, when it comes to setting the eligibility criteria for adults accessing their services or the provision of funding for specialist support. This variation results in a ‘postcode lottery’, whereby clients may or may not be fortunate enough to receive specialist services that meet their cultural-linguistic needs because of where they live, not their level of need. In addition, the degree of cultural awareness from mainstream professionals can influence the stage at which specialists are involved.
Referrals from outside the LA system
Participants who were not SWDPs explained that they received most referrals via solicitors or when courts requested a second opinion from an expert. It was rare for them to be contacted at an early stage of the safeguarding process as referrals usually involved cases that either came directly from the court where specialist assessment reports were required or were already involved in Public Law Outline (PLO) processes (these time-limited processes are designed to bring social workers, parents and legal representatives together in an attempt to address concerns and potentially avoid the need to issue care proceedings in court). Participants thought legal requests were a good starting point but considered it a best practice to be involved at an earlier stage in the process. I often become involved when the case is nearly at the end with PLO either just before court or in court, never early in the process (S4).
One participant observed that intermediaries might become involved when the case went to court; a register of intermediaries is available from the Ministry of Justice. However, several participants acknowledged that the timing of referrals often depended on the solicitor’s knowledge of the existence of specialist roles, or whether another professional involved in the case – for example, an interpreter – highlights the need for specialist input. In addition, some legal teams are only prepared to recruit locally based specialists due to the costs involved.
Several participants commented on an alternative source of requests through healthcare providers, for example, from clients’ local GPs. They believed that demand was growing due to word-of-mouth recommendations and an increasing awareness of the specialist roles available in accordance with the Care Act 2014’s stipulation of an individual’s rights to independent advocacy support.
The majority of participants believed that their own involvement had reduced the number of child removals; one participant even suggested that number had halved. They all argued that their contribution could ensure parents’ full understanding, which had important consequences – for example, demonstrating to other professionals that the Deaf parents involved are cooperating. However, they all emphasised the need to be part of the case from the earliest stages. Overall, participants’ experiences suggested a lack of standard protocols for specialist referrals, both within and outside of LA services in England, stressing the need for a clear protocol determining how and when referrals are made to specialist professionals, because early preventative work can be so beneficial for clients.
Discussion
The findings from the study have shown that the level of recognition of specialists by mainstream professionals varies considerably due to a number of factors.
As interpreters tend to be the first point of contact in a parental assessment, many of these professionals often assume that interpreters can provide solutions to any issues which arise. This is often the case if social workers perceive the barrier to effective assessment being only linguistic – that is, that the parent and the professional do not share a language – a problem which can be solved with an interpreter, so no further hindrance is anticipated. In reality, the professional/parent encounter across languages is also an encounter across cultures. Even if the semantic content of communication is understood, its significance in terms of cultural resonance, interpretation and meaning may not be. Research concerning social work and interpreters, largely relating to spoken language, has consistently suggested that in interpreter-mediated conversations, information is easily lost and misjudgements can occur if professionals do not have sufficient cultural capital to recognise and understand the impact of the parent’s own cultural-linguistic positioning on the assessment process and inter-subjective sense-making (Tipton, 2014). In addition, working with interpreters who share (or have more knowledge of) the parent’s cultural background can shift the social positioning of all participants, making it more difficult for social workers to build rapport with the family (Kriz and Skivenes, 2010). These effects are especially worrying in such complex and sensitive situations as parenting assessments, which require nuanced understanding and professional judgement.
As those interviewed in this study have emphasised, the specialist skills required for parenting assessment with Deaf parents encompass those of several professional roles including the advocate, the intermediary and the specialist social worker. An interpreter is not all of these, and neither does a mainstream social worker generally have the background to fulfil these roles. Despite the Local Safeguarding Partners (formerly LSCBs) emphasising as part of their working guidelines that providing appropriate linguistic and cultural support is ‘good practice’, this study suggests this is not routinely happening.
Secondly, as Drugan (2017) explains, there has been insufficient recognition of the change in dynamics that bringing in an interpreter can bring to the assessment process. Potential impacts include, for example, the variable quality of the interpreter’s understanding of context resulting in tension and subsequently a loss of trust between parents and professionals; the interpreter’s presence affecting the professional’s ability to build rapport with the family; or the professional’s feeling that they have lost status due to the interpreter’s superior knowledge of the family’s language/culture (Kriz and Skivenes, 2010; Tipton, 2014).
However, evidence of specific impacts in the case of parents who are Deaf within the context of child safeguarding and parenting assessment in particular is lacking. The data reported so far suggest that in a visual language like BSL, the choice of appropriate signs and linguistic structure (e.g. the placement of that sign) for the particular context is critical to avoid misunderstandings. Therefore, having sufficient background knowledge of the assessment process and both linguistic and cultural potential pitfalls is vital. Also important is a keen understanding that key concepts routinely used in parenting assessment and safeguarding work with parents may be totally unfamiliar to Deaf parents.
Thirdly, as this study has shown, the referral systems in different fields do not account for the wide-ranging variation in awareness of the needs of the Deaf community demonstrated by mainstream professionals. This affects when specialists are brought into the process. Timing is important because, at the simplest level, without some level of deaf awareness the linguistic and cultural needs of Deaf parents within a safeguarding process are not routinely flagged as indicating a complex case from the start. The implications of their cultural-linguistic identity are often not identified until much later in the process, resulting in complications that could have been prevented had professionals known how to access the resources they needed, or even that such resources were needed at all.
It is notable that participants emphasised that when specialists become involved later in the assessment process, they usually have to carry out significant repair work with Deaf parents first. This involves revisiting each step of the process to ensure parents have fully understood and dealing with any misunderstandings that have already occurred. Yet, with one exception, all cases shared by participants confirm they are not brought into the process until later – usually when a PLO is in place. This delay in their involvement has a knock-on effect, requiring the input of additional time and money to ensure the necessary information is accessible to all parties; however, the PLO stipulation of a 26-week timescale for this process renders this even more difficult to achieve. Crucially, it also exerts an emotional toll on parents who might potentially have avoided this entire process if the right support had been there from the beginning. However, the evidence in the wider literature to support this assumption is lacking as this is such an under-researched area.
Restrictions within the system, evidenced by the experience of those interviewed, mean there is no guarantee that a Deaf-related case will be allocated to someone with experience of working with Deaf people if there is not a specialised professional in-house. In fact, participants described the accidental connections and serendipity that might cause them to be brought in as professionals rather than any clear system pathway of what should happen if a safeguarding case involves Deaf parents. The remit of specialist social work services available to Deaf people varies in each LA in England because there is no standard protocol (Wilson et al., 2018). To assume that good practice for the majority works equally for all client groups, regardless of linguistic-cultural differences (Young et al., 2018), could cause more damage than is realised through the unintended consequences of indirect discrimination or organisation-level inequalities.
The target group for this study is described as specialists. Participants have demonstrated that, although previously the specialist role was typically an SWDP, in recent years this description has widened to include a number of different roles, in particular those of advocates and intermediaries. This shift could be due to the demise of SWDP posts (Young et al., 2010), together with the promotion of service users’ independence, autonomy and right to advocacy, as prescribed by the Care Act (2014). The fact that a recent search for ‘deaf’ specialists on the British Association Social Work website (Independents Directory, 2022) yielded only a single result indicates that this area of specialism is missing in social work.
Furthermore, regardless of the difference between these specialist roles, they share similar tasks in the child-safeguarding context: to support a Deaf person’s understanding of the process and to enable them fully to participate in and be understood by others in that process. That work involves a considerable degree of cultural brokerage, defined by Lo as ‘bridging, linking or mediating between groups or persons from different cultures’ (2010, p. 487). This participant group views these skills – that is, fluency in BSL in combination with a deep understanding of Deaf culture – as the ‘norm’, a fundamentally standard part of their job which qualifies them to be acknowledged as a specialist. They also undertake language advocacy, that is, ensuring that their clients understand all the information, including written materials, related to their case.
The mainstream recognition of their roles, however, varies across settings and influences the stage at which they become involved. As an example, SWDPs are often situated within the assessment process and likely to be working alongside statutory professionals, whereas intermediaries will be mostly engaged with legal professionals, later in the process, for example, in court; each role appears on separate registers. In comparison, an advocate’s involvement relies on the legislation related to individuals’ rights (Section 67, the Care Act 2014), although they are more likely to be present throughout the safeguarding process. It would appear, therefore, that different specialist roles are acknowledged by mainstream professionals from different fields, and at various stages of the assessment process. However, on balance, the level of recognition of each is broadly equivalent.
The absence of a national register of specialist professionals indicates that there is no straightforward way of directly contacting individuals in these roles, posing a further challenge for mainstream professionals who try to seek such support. Participants strongly emphasised the need for a central hub in the UK where specialists can be searched for online, improving the profile and recognition of their work. Interpreters have such a register, together with their own Codes of Conduct (NRCPD 2015), the existence of which could possibly explain why they are typically approached first by the mainstream services.
Conclusion
This study’s findings demonstrate the inconsistencies apparent in the current mainstream service provision for Deaf parents in the child-safeguarding context, and more specifically with regard to parenting assessment. Lack of recognition of the cultural-linguistic status of Deaf parents combines with a failure to acknowledge the nuanced roles of many specialists, beyond the remit of interpreters, to create a social work service response that is less than adequate in many cases. Participants all suggested that there needs to be a national register which clearly details the variety of specialist roles and ensures that individuals listed have been through a vetting procedure and are up to date with training, particularly regarding child protection. This would provide mainstream professionals with a resource they could use to book an appropriate specialist when required.
Time is of the essence in both social work and the legal field, and therefore a standard referral protocol is essential to ensure a consistent procedure. In this way, specialists with the appropriate skills can be brought into the assessment process earlier as a preventative measure to avoid any complications in the longer term and also to offer a more cost-effective approach. Mainstream professionals need sufficient cultural knowledge to recognise that they should involve specialists from the start, thereby making the referral process more efficient; the level of awareness required may be achieved through training.
There is still a need for more research in this field including perspectives from Deaf parents and children’s social workers, given the current trend of noticeably high numbers of child removals and in order to reduce the number of child protection cases.
Supplemental Material
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ES/P000665/1).
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
