Assessing deaf parents in safeguarding and child protection processes: Deaf experts’ experience of routine social work practice

Abstract

This study concerns Deaf parents whose primary language is British Sign Language (BSL) and who are assessed as part of safeguarding and child protection processes. Seven Deaf-specialist professionals were interviewed in BSL about their experiences of usual practice with Child and Family Social workers who have little or no experience of child protection investigation and safeguarding assessments involving Deaf BSL users. The Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) informed data generation and the approach to analysis in BSL. Findings focus on: (i) getting early interactions right between mainstream social workers and Deaf parents (ii) the practice of relying on written English (iii) problems of cultural adaption between languages (iv) cultural norms in asking questions and (v) challenges arising from a poverty of background information. Recommendations are offered for improving cultural-linguistic practice when working with Deaf parents within safeguarding/child protection.

Keywords

Child protection deaf studies parents British sign language safeguarding parenting assessments

Introduction

This article concerns Deaf parents in England who use British Sign Language (BSL) and have contact with social workers as part of a child safeguarding assessment process. Conventionally, an uppercase D is used to signify this cultural-linguistic group in contrast to lowercase ‘deaf’ for individuals with hearing loss, who use spoken language and do not consider themselves to have a Deaf identity. Using the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) approach, the article reports findings from a qualitative interview study with a range of specialist professionals (both D/deaf¹ and hearing). Exploring participants’ knowledge and experiences of the parenting assessment process when working with one, or more, Deaf BSL-using parents in a child safeguarding situation, it considers the cross-cultural approaches employed and their understanding of good practice in this particular context.

Background

Prior to discussing the study and its findings, we² present some contextual features that will be important for understanding the challenges, processes and outcomes discussed.

Deaf people and the deaf community

The Deaf community is a linguistically and culturally distinct group of people who are usually born deaf, or become so at a young age, and use BSL as their preferred language (Ladd, 2003; British Deaf Association (BDA), 2015). BSL is not a gestural version of English but rather a unique, visual language with its own grammar and syntax expressed through a range of specified handshapes moving in a three-dimensional visual frame, in combination with facial expressions and body language that have semantic weight (Sutton-Spence and Woll, 1999). BSL is officially recognised by the Government as one of the four indigenous UK languages (BSL Act, 2022)³; however, only a small proportion of mainstream information and service access is formally available in BSL. The current BSL Advisory Committee, convened by the Cabinet Office in England, will make recommendations to address this shortly (UK Government, 2024). Similar to other linguistic-cultural groups, the estimated 73,000 – 127,000 individuals (BDA, 2024) who make up the Deaf community are immersed within a rich cultural tradition, based on their shared experiences and values, which has passed down through generations (Ladd, 2003). Educational access and attainment for this group vary considerably. A report from CRIDE (Consortium for Research in Deaf Education) (2023) states that 97% of deaf children and young people are educated in mainstream educational settings, the vast majority through speaking, hearing and listening approaches, historically referred to as oralism and viewed as oppressive by many in the Deaf community (Ladd, 2022). ‘Lip-reading’, more correctly termed ‘speech-reading’, refers to the practice of understanding what someone says from the shapes made by their mouth (known as ‘lip-patterns’), with or without the supplement of sound amplified through digital hearing technologies (hearing aids, cochlear implants). However, much of spoken English is not actually visible on the lips, and many words have similar lip patterns (for example, tree/green, bat/mat/pat). Relying heavily on context, it is estimated that 70%–80% of lip-reading is guesswork (Scottish Sensory Centre, 2005; National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS), 2023). Educational attainment and age-appropriate literacy for deaf children remains a challenge (Harris et al., 2017). GCSEs (General Certificate of Secondary Education) are the core means of educational assessment at the end of compulsory education in England and a 12% gap between deaf children’s average GCSE attainment and that of hearing children persists, despite advances in hearing technologies and earlier identification of deafness in infants (NDCS, 2024). Issues in effectively teaching English literacy have impacted generations of Deaf people (Conrad, 1979) and access to education in BSL remains rare. Consequently, understanding written information, particularly if it is complex, can be problematic for many Deaf adults (Young et al., 2016).

Parenting as Deaf Parents

Communication barriers experienced by this community can extend to members of their own family. More than 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents (NDCS, 2022), often with little or no experience of deafness (Moores, 2001), for whom spoken language is the norm. For those Deaf people who then become parents themselves, many will not have had a model of parenting, based within their own preferred language and culture, on which to draw. That situation is further complicated because approximately 90%–95% of Deaf parents have hearing children, resulting in fundamental differences in identity between generations. Research into Deaf individuals with deaf children suggests their approach is usually based on strategies of intuitive parenting (Koester, 1992; Spencer et al., 1992), recognising the importance of visual cues and distance regulation. However, Deaf parents with hearing children must contend with the demands of cross-cultural and bilingual parenting, and these differing cultural life experiences can prove challenging for such families to negotiate (Foltz et al., 2022; Pollard and Rendon, 1999; Withey, 2023).

Safeguarding (child protection) processes

In England, the statutory provision of social work to people of all ages falls within the remit of the local authorities (administrative geographical districts across the country). Each local authority (LA) is responsible for different areas of activity, including education, and develops its own procedures and protocols within the boundaries provided by the legislation. Therefore, the duties, powers and responsibilities are consistent but the nature of service provision can vary. The lead agency with child safeguarding responsibility, including child protection investigation, is the LA children’s social care services.

The safeguarding processes, as termed in England, in line with various legislation (Children Act 1989, 2004; Children and Families Act 2014) are not solely focused on seeking evidence of specific abuse but more broadly aim to identify potential risks to a child’s welfare, development or health, including any concerns that parents and families might require support with these. Schedule 2 of the Children Act (1989) specifically mentions cultural considerations and disability in this respect. The provisions of the Equality Act (2010) with regard to disability and race (under which considerations of culture and language are assumed), also form part of the legislative framework in which child safeguarding and protection services operate. When a child is referred, an assessment is then carried out to identify the primary need for services and to decide the next course of action. The type of assessment undertaken varies in relation to the level of concern raised in the referral and is led by a qualified social worker who works directly with the parents, family members and the child (if appropriate) to gather information and collate the input from other agencies, usually within 26 weeks. Integral to these processes are a wide variety of assessments including parenting competence, parenting need and parenting support. A specialist assessment may also need to be included, depending on its complexity, to provide an in-depth comprehensive evaluation of child and family circumstances. Outcomes include, where possible, children’s services offering interventions with the aim of keeping the family together. Alternatively, services may decide to remove a child from the family temporarily prior to Family Court proceedings or even pursue a care order (granted by the court and giving the LA shared or full parental responsibility for a child, either short or long-term: for example, foster placement or adoption, depending on the level of concern.

Such safeguarding processes rely, to a large extent, on sensitive and effective communication with families and children, which becomes more complex when the social worker and the parent do not share a language or are from differing cultural backgrounds. This is true also when working with Deaf parents. Traditionally it would be Social Workers with Deaf People (SWDP), some of whom would be Deaf, who would be involved in facilitating this communication; however, ‘deaf teams’ with cultural and linguistic expertise are no longer a common feature of children’s or adults’ services in the UK (Oram and Young, 2024). More commonly a specialist Child and Family Social Worker (CFSW) with a sign language interpreter would now be used instead (Oram et al., 2023). The interpreter’s role does not usually extend to providing cultural mediation or advice and they are more often regarded as a conduit between languages only (Pochhacker, 2008; Wang 2017). More rarely, a Deaf specialist such as an intermediary or advocate might be employed to work alongside a social worker, precisely to ensure cultural competence and cultural mediation within a safeguarding assessment, but this is not common and often only happens when a case has escalated (Oram et al., 2023).

Evidence about deaf parenting assessment

There is little prior research evidence considering potential problems for Deaf BSL parents undergoing parenting assessments as part of the safeguarding process. However, in an appeal granted to a Deaf father (Re C (A Child) [2014] EWCA (England and Wales Court Appeal) Civ 128), the Family Court guidance advised that an expert in sign language and/or Deaf culture should be required in all family court proceedings involving a Deaf parent. During my career as a qualified, registered specialist social worker, who is also culturally Deaf, I have observed that Family Court hearings involving Deaf parents conclude in the removal of the child from their parents in a notably high number of cases. Unfortunately, very little statistical evidence is available in the UK. However, the US-based organisation, the National Council on Disability (2012), has highlighted that parents who are deaf or blind experience very high levels of child removal. I undertook an initial, formal literature search utilising key social science databases, PsychINFO and AISSA, together with PubMed (for a different perspective), from 2000 to 2018, updated in 2024; no relevant literature specifically concerning parenting assessment and Deaf parents was identified. The key terms used (with appropriate synonyms) included sign language/s, parental perspectives and child safeguarding, with an international scope.

Upon expanding the literature search to include other non-English speaking cultural-linguistic minorities, only a few articles were identified in relation to parenting support and the parenting assessment process in cross-cultural, multilingual or interpreter-mediated situations involving child safeguarding (Barn, 2002; Fazil et al., 2002; Welbourne, 2002). Each addressed limitations or gaps in meeting the cultural-linguistic needs of parents when they sought support from statutory services in relation to parenting, highlighting that the information and professional interventions on offer were largely linguistically/culturally inappropriate.

Methodology and methods

Research aims and objectives

This study forms one component of a broader research project concerning Deaf parents within the child safeguarding system. In a previous publication we focused on the issue of ‘Professional Recognition’, which incorporated (a) the identification of specialist roles and (b) the impact of referral processes and protocols on assessment outcomes (Oram et al., 2023). In this paper, we concentrate on Deaf specialist practitioners’ observations of usual practice with Child and Family Social workers who have little or no experience of child protection investigation and safeguarding assessments involving Deaf BSL users. Specifically the practice issues which arise during Deaf parenting assessments resulting from the linguistic and cultural aspects of the process are addressed. The aims of the study overall were:

To explore the knowledge and experiences of current Deaf-expert practitioners working in the field of child protection on cases where one or more parent is Deaf.

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 were:

To draw on practitioner knowledge about approaches currently being used when working with Deaf parents where parenting 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].

Research Design

For this qualitative study, the methodological framework of IPA was selected as it was felt that key components matched the three main aspects of this idiographic, contextual and phenomenological approach (Vicary and Ferguson, 2024). Participants were drawn from the homogeneous group of specialist professionals working in the particular context of child safeguarding and parenting assessment with Deaf parents. This methodological approach allowed an in-depth exploration of each individual’s perceptions of their experiences and how they understood the world, guided by what they considered to be important in their practice (Smith et al., 2021).

As a culturally-Deaf, qualified, registered social worker, I was cognisant that my own knowledge and experiences of working with members of the Deaf community would potentially influence every aspect of the research process (Ho et al., 2017). Smith and Osborn (2008) describe IPA as a dynamic process with an active role for the researcher within it, and this flexibility was a key factor in my decision. Employing a double-hermeneutic approach (Maykut and Morehouse, 1994) enabled me to remain mindful of my positionality within this two-way relationship between participant and researcher, remaining conscious of each participant’s world from their perspective (Smith et al., 2021) whilst positively and rigorously accounting for my own identity and experience through each stage of the process.

Recruitment and sampling

Given the scarcity of appropriately experienced professionals (in England), the suitability of IPA for small sample sizes was another key factor. It was decided that a sample of five participants would be considered realistic and sufficient for this exploratory study as it was a homogeneous group of participants with possibly similar experiences of working in this field. In reality, seven were recruited and participated. Following ethical approval from the University of Manchester, participants were purposively sampled (Patton, 2002), drawing on my pre-existing professional network. Using the snowballing technique (Morgan, 2008), emails were sent to individuals working in a variety of specialised roles in the field of child protection with Deaf parents. Participants were required to have a minimum of 5 years’ experience working in such a role and be fluent in BSL.

Six of the seven participants were d/Deaf and all of them could communicate in BSL to a high standard; some were native signers. Their experience of being employed in a specialist role ranged from seven to 30 years. Four participants were qualified social workers. Five out of the seven worked in their specialist role in a part-time capacity, also working in other posts in the fields of child protection, mental health and other non-specialist areas⁴. The hearing status of one participant was of limited significance because all participants shared a similar cultural competence, language and forms of behaviour rooted in what is often referred to as the ‘deaf’ lens. The hearing participant had many years of experience in the ‘Deaf world’ which is consistent with the cultural use of ‘Deaf’ to refer to identity, rather than hearing status for example, hearing children of Deaf parents can be seen as members of the Deaf community.

Data collection

Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted at a participant’s preferred location, typically lasting 1 hour. All participants chose to converse in BSL (without the need for an interpreter) and interviews were video-recorded using two cameras to ensure the visual language was captured in full.

Ethical considerations

Due to the highly sensitive nature of the topic under discussion, my co-authors and I (all of whom are registered social workers) devised a protocol for use in the event that participants disclosed incidents of unsafe practice or harm that they had been involved in or witnessed from a third party. This included the potential need for us to report such disclosures or remind them of their own professional duties and obligations to take action. This requirement to break confidentiality, if justified, was explained in the participant information sheet provided as part of the individual informed consent process. We also had procedures in place for signposting participants to appropriate support if required. Other ethical considerations involved the possibility of gatekeeping (as permission letters needed to be signed by participants’ employers for legal purposes) and the potential impact on participants of recording interviews. Depending on each participant’s preferred language, recording would require the use of two video cameras (for interviews conducted entirely in BSL) or a video camera, audio-recorder and the involvement of an interpreter (for interviews conducted in both English and BSL). Additional procedures for the upload and storage of BSL data, following a University Standard Operating Procedure approved as meeting GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) requirements, were in place.

Data analysis

The data were analysed with adaptations to the standard six stages used in IPA in order to accommodate the visual nature of BSL data (Ferguson-Coleman and Young, 2023; Simcock et al., 2024). This analytical approach not only acknowledges the potential influences of my status as a Deaf social worker but views it as a useful contribution to the analysis and reporting of data, provided that it is accounted for transparently (Rodham et al., 2015). To ensure consistency, I utilised a tabulated form to compare data during the coding process, thereby allowing the identification of similarities and the emergence of patterns which became key themes. (Participants were anonymised and listed by ID number). In addition, I used QSR NVivo 12 software to record each stage of my reflexive process following a step-by-step timeline, decided in advance (Smith et al., 2021).

Approaching data analysis in this way encouraged my reflexivity, acknowledging the multi-layered lenses I was using to view the data – as a Deaf person, researcher and social worker – and the subsequent difficulties of expressing this cultural visual complexity in written English. I elected to keep the data in its original source language of BSL because, as a native signer, I considered this the best way to mitigate the risk of losing the finer details of the participants’ contributions. In a visual signed language, subtle differences in handshapes, speed and repetition of movement, the degree of emotion expressed on the face and through the body, together with other paralinguistic aspects of the language, are key linguistic and cultural elements which inform the meaning. Therefore, I watched the original video data repeatedly throughout the analysis in order to prioritise the participants’ data in its original form (Temple and Young, 2004). The direct quotations selected from the participants were translated into English after the analysis, for publication, with the support of a qualified BSL-English interpreter for verification.

Findings

In the research project as a whole, five overarching themes were identified: Professional Recognition, Organisational System (social services), Parenting Assessment Process, Concept of Deaf Parenting, and Family and Social Work Dynamics. This article focuses only on the ‘Parenting Assessment Process’, examining issues which arise from linguistic and cultural aspects of the execution of that process in practice. Close attention is paid to what actually occurs between social workers, parents and other professionals within a framework of a cross-cultural and cross-linguistic encounter.

The Parenting Assessment Process theme consists of five practice-related issues identified from the data which structure the presentation of findings: (i) getting early interactions right between mainstream social workers and Deaf parents; (ii) the practice of relying on written English; (iii) problems of cultural adaptation between languages; (iv) cultural norms in asking questions; and (v) challenges arising from a poverty of background information.

Getting early interactions right between mainstream social workers and deaf parents

The majority of child protection referrals are allocated to mainstream CFSWs for initial assessment, irrespective of whether they have prior experience of working with Deaf people (Oram et al., 2023). Participants reported a few examples where mainstream professionals visited the family home without any form of communication support (e.g. an interpreter), never having met a Deaf person before and having no linguistic or cultural knowledge about this community.

That was the worst case I have ever known as there was no SWDP or interpreter involved in assessment; the SWs were trying to deal with the parents by themselves through the procedure – I was mortified as that was just because the social worker didn’t have enough understanding of deaf culture or language! [P1]

Specialist social workers were rarely involved in assessments from the start, often not being brought into the case until the initial visit(s) and parent assessment had been completed. However, the impact of not paying attention to linguistic and cultural elements of the assessment process from the start can have longer term repercussions. At later stages, most participants reported witnessing tension in the parents, who did not fully understand why the CFSW was assessing them. Without linguistically and culturally matched specialist support from the outset, parents would not be fully informed about the procedures nor have any understanding of their own rights and responsibilities. More specifically, five participants indicated that in their experience, few Deaf parents understand the seriousness of the investigation or how it relates to them, which the mainstream professionals might not be aware of or entirely appreciate. One described a case where their client did not realise that the LA’s concerns related to their partner until quite late in the proceedings, because earlier information about a particular incident had not been clearly conveyed. With the full information, that individual is now aware of how to seek professional support should they have any concerns about their partner’s ability to cope in the future (as their children remain in their care).

The practice of relying on written English and its consequences

A few participants noted mainstream professionals’ confusion about why the parents could not understand an agreement written in English as that would not rely on their ability to hear. They did not realise that some Deaf people have limited English proficiency. Participants also raised the repeated issue of needing to remind professionals to consider using alternative methods when contacting the parents, rather than relying on lengthy written text in the form of letters or emails. Some even left telephone voice-messages! In their experience, parents failing to respond can result in professional assumptions of non-cooperation or even ‘neglect’, when in fact the problem may be the barrier to comprehension created by the social worker’s reliance on written English.

I reminded the social services before not to text or email the client because of his limited capacity in understanding English. He was sent a long text from the social worker asking why he has stopped visiting his child. He interpreted ‘stopped’ as ‘banned or not allowed’ so he became distressed. [P5]

Participants remarked that these significant misunderstandings between parents and mainstream professionals can mean that emotions and reactions are also misconstrued. The build-up of stress and anxiety could trigger parental behaviour which the CFSW might consider a cause for concern, or alternatively, they might perceive the parents’ lack of reaction to be uncooperative or indicative of not caring. In reality, parents’ reactions may stem from not fully comprehending the situation that is unfolding. There were also examples cited by participants where the CFSW had assumed that the emotional responses and negative reactions of parents toward them might actually be simply because they were ‘deaf’ – an unperceived form of discrimination.

Deaf parents may choose different ways to express emotions, possibly in a negative way, to a CFSW. We know when we read their behaviour – the CFSW may think that it is related to being deaf but that’s not the case! [P2]

Problems of cultural adaptation between languages

As fluent BSL users, several participants discussed the balancing act which is required when working between two languages and cultures in safeguarding situations. Their concerns were two-fold: firstly, relating to their own interaction with mainstream CFSWs who do not have BSL skills or knowledge of Deaf culture, and secondly, regarding the interaction between those CFSWs and Deaf parents. Typically, the social worker’s questions may not be culturally appropriate because they are perceived as too vague or generalised, so the Deaf person is unsure what type of answer is required. For example, a question like ‘How do you think you have been managing?’ is very difficult to translate correctly, as ‘managing’ could refer to coping, feeling, organising, responding and so on.

Polysemy exists in both English and BSL so an individual sign or word can have different meanings (Fenlon et al., 2015; Sutton-Spence and Woll, 1999); for example, the sign for ‘excited’ can also be translated as ‘interested’ or ‘keen’ (Fenlon et al., 2015), leading to further confusion and miscommunication even when interpreters are involved. There are also regional variations in BSL, where individuals might use completely different signs for days of the week, numbers or a simple word like ‘water’, exacerbating the risk of serious misunderstandings. Although these are usual features of working between languages, the context of child protection means that the potential consequences of failure to clarify communicative intentions and meanings can have serious consequences.

In a specific example offered by one participant, the CFSW asked the parent if they ‘left the baby’, to which the parent replied with an emphatic yes. However, when the participant repeated the question using a different, culturally-adapted sign which translated more specifically as asking whether the mother went out of the house and left the baby inside, the response was very different. The parent was mortified and explained they never did that, but that they had understood the initial question to mean leaving the baby to go into another room. A specialist professional who is a BSL user would know the significance of checking this meaning and response. One who is not, and therefore relying on an interpreter, might well take the mother’s first response at face value.

Another participant described a parent using a sign which the interpreter translated as ‘nagging to the ear’ however further questioning revealed the parent was describing ‘the voices in their head’. The CFSW was extremely grateful for the specialist’s input during the assessment, which not only altered the decision regarding the care of the child, but also established a care plan offering medical intervention for the parent. Such examples highlight the need for sensitive probing which is beyond the remit of most interpreters.

Cultural norms in asking questions

Participants suggested that problems might also arise from the structure of the initial assessment process which is typically used by mainstream CFSWs. The format often begins with open questions, followed up by requests for more details as required. They explained how this questioning style, moving from general to specific, can create anxiety for Deaf parents because it is a culturally unfamiliar approach. BSL, from a linguistic point of view, is a topic-comment language, rather than a subject-verb-object language (Deuchar, 1983, 1984; Sutton-Spence and Woll, 1999; Marshall et al., 2014). This grammatical feature leads to a discursive style where it is more usual for the main point to be introduced immediately in a way hearing people often find too direct or intrusive, but which, for Deaf people, is culturally more familiar and would be expected as a style of interaction. As a result, participants noted that parents can feel confused by the building momentum of this general to specific questioning approach and remain oblivious to the main aim of the interview or become increasingly anxious about what will happen to their child.

I often see Deaf parents nod to suggest they understand even though they clearly are not following what is being discussed (maybe through fear of embarrassment or feeling under pressure) and the interpreter carries on signing. [P7]

I often see questions that are not right for Deaf parents due to a lack of deaf (cultural) awareness from the social worker (assessor). They see ‘deaf’ as the problem, which is so wrong. [P4]

Consequently, all participants described the importance of making cultural adjustments without losing the question’s original intent.

Some participants explained that restructuring the question (rather than just linguistically interpreting it into BSL) could assist the Deaf parent to better understand what information the professional was seeking. Within Deaf culture, members of this community usually clarify with examples of what the question refers to, or even presenting a clear binary choice, for example, ‘good day or bad day?’ (below example provided from participant), rather than saying ‘how are you?’. By offering a choice of potential replies, rather than an open-ended format, the central aim of the question is clear and unambiguous.

Original question in English: ‘what is a good day to you?’

Restructured question in BSL: ‘You, today been like? Good (great) or not bad (so-so)? Yesterday?

[If the parent said that they’d had a good day, the specialist would follow up with ‘how’ or ‘what’, which would encourage the parent to describe or define what they meant]

Challenges and adaptations arising from poverty of background information

Growing up, many Deaf people experience significant barriers to educational attainment because of a failure to accommodate their language preferences, or other barriers to accessing information. They also have fewer opportunities for general knowledge learning through access to incidental information (e.g. overhearing) or having diverse social contacts (Young et al., 2016). Consequently, some participants suggested that many Deaf people might not share the majority culture’s understanding of a concept such as ‘safeguarding’. They considered that the Deaf community is not up-to-date with these shifts in terminology with terms like ‘child protection’ or ‘child abuse’ being more familiar. Checking Deaf parents’ knowledge and understanding of terms and concepts is therefore considered vital to avoid misunderstanding, no matter how well the English might be interpreted into BSL. For example:

When I work with Deaf parents, I always start by asking what they know about child protection or safeguarding. I often have to explain what those terms mean, e.g., grooming, supervision visits, and so on. You have to adjust to the appropriate cultural register, like brokerage first, with education. I know some examples of good practice out there, which means educating first before assessing. [P3]

All participants suggested that they have to culturally adapt the standard assessment protocol to ensure Deaf parents have the best opportunity to understand and respond. Two, for example, said they sometimes used role-play or gave parents a scenario to consider to help them understand key concepts that are being assessed.

We have to give examples and Deaf parents sometimes don’t consider what could happen – they have never been taught about these situations or don’t know what to say in case they give a wrong answer. [P2]

As a result of the many risks of miscommunication described, several participants had been in situations where when translating the CFSW’s report back to Deaf parents they had noticed significant errors and misunderstandings that were being compounded as the process continued. This was especially concerning at the stage of court proceedings. Several participants described how they had submitted a request for another independent assessment in light of errors they had noticed.

I myself have asked for another assessment as some information I found in the social worker report did not match what the parents told me. I usually recommend a psychologist with BSL skills whom I know or an independent family social worker (specialist) to do the assessment. [P7]

However, such repair work is time-consuming. One participant described a situation where the case ‘dragged on’ for almost two years because of the poor quality of the children’s services’ initial parenting assessment, whereas others have had their request for an extension refused.

Today I received an email from one solicitor that my request for an intermediary for one complex case has been refused because of the timescale (26 weeks). The case has been extended a few times already and they just want to get on with it, for the child’s welfare. [P4]

Offering a different perspective, another participant described their positive working relationship with the CFSW, in a situation where they undertook a joint assessment. The latter understood it was necessary to allow the specialist the time and flexibility to adapt the assessment process to meet the needs of the Deaf client, resulting in a productive interaction for all concerned.

Discussion

This study set out to examine, through the perceptions and experience of specialist professionals working in this field, how safeguarding assessments are routinely conducted with Deaf parents, usually in the absence of specialist workers. Specifically, it has examined what happens when social work practitioners encounter Deaf parents, usually for the first time, and apply their safeguarding and assessment skills and experience to this different linguistic and cultural context. Specifically, interest lies in whether usual processes of parenting assessments are fit for purpose in the case of Deaf parents, and how strengths and vulnerabilities may be obscured or revealed in those who are the subject of such assessment if social workers have little or no prior experience of Deaf people. Findings have illustrated that linguistic and cultural influences might impede interaction and understanding, potentially leading to false inferences which can impact on the effectiveness and even the outcome of the assessment process. Examples of evidence-informed practice and consolidated practice wisdom shared by specialists offer a new lens through which to view safeguarding/child protection with Deaf parents.

In the experience of the participants, safeguarding assessments with Deaf parents are often carried out by mainstream SW professionals who are not necessarily aware of this community’s linguistic and cultural differences. From the observations of Deaf specialists, it is a common misperception amongst mainstream professionals that involving an interpreter in the assessment process is believed sufficient to resolve any communication issues and gather all the necessary information from parents. This assumption also fails to recognise the situation as one where cross-cultural understanding is also required. To co-work effectively, the interpreter would need relevant extra-linguistic knowledge surrounding child protection (Gile, 2009) and in-depth cultural knowledge of the Deaf community, allowing them to frame the information appropriately, alongside the opportunity to discuss the background of the individual case with the SW throughout the process (Tipton, 2016). Even with all of this, communication can still break down, and therefore specialist professionals are often brought into these cases at the suggestion of interpreters, who understand that these very specific skills fall outside of their own remit (Oram et al., 2023). Specialists in this study identified problems when their input is requested, often at a later stage of the assessment, and expressed concern about the ability of some mainstream social workers to effectively assess Deaf parents.

Moreover, the impact of linguistic-cultural differences extends beyond the obvious breakdowns of communication that occur during interactions between parents and professionals. Challenges faced by many Deaf people often go unnoticed because the cumulative impact of not being able to easily access information in their preferred language is not always recognised. Findings in this study demonstrate that in the experience of the participants, mainstream professionals with whom they have worked appear to assume Deaf parents share their knowledge and understanding about concepts being discussed in the contexts of child protection and safeguarding, even though specialists identify that often this is not the case. Deaf people have different lived experiences to the majority hearing population and may not have the same opportunities to gain world knowledge due to the barriers to communication they encounter on a daily basis. As previously mentioned, many Deaf people have experienced educational barriers which have impacted on their understanding of written English. Low literacy contributes to what Pollard (1998) has termed ‘fund-of-information deficit’ – a distinct limitation in one’s factual knowledge base in comparison to the general population despite normal IQ and educational attainment.

In addition, not being able to access spoken English means that Deaf people miss out on much of the incidental everyday sources of information which are readily available to the hearing majority (for example TV and radio, casual conversations). In a rare example of research looking at deaf people’s background knowledge around health issues, Pollard and Barnett (2009) found evidence of low health literacy in their sample of Deaf individuals with college-level education, suggesting that the general Deaf population is at a higher risk of health problems associated with their low health literacy. Although there is an absence of published research exploring the impact of these communication barriers in a social care context, participants have suggested that there are significant gaps in Deaf parents’ fund of knowledge. The combination of a scarcity of formal knowledge provided in BSL, and limited access to written and spoken English can mean that Deaf parents are less aware than their hearing peers about issues including abuse and safeguarding (Wilson et al., 2018). This can impact on their ability to identify risk on behalf of their children, and/or they may have put themselves at risk, as children or later in life. When mainstream professionals do not recognise this long-term impact, especially in the high-pressure, high-stakes scenario of a child protection/safeguarding assessment, then parental stress can be hugely exacerbated. Yet this stress, which can manifest in the reactions and emotions of parents, may itself be assumed to be because the parent is deaf (not hearing), rather than recognised as an understandable response to an unintelligible process that is not meeting their linguistic and cultural needs.

This cycle of compounded negative assumptions arising from cultural misunderstandings has been documented in other facets of social care, such as the disproportionate detentions under the Mental Health Act 1983 of Black British Men (Care Quality Commission, 2024). However, cultural-linguistic effects on outcomes with respect to Deaf people, and in this case Deaf parents, are far less widely acknowledged because of the lack of recognition of Deaf people as a cultural-linguistic minority to whom cross-cultural thinking should apply in professional practice. The assumption that written English will work because it does not rely on hearing, evident in this study, is a case in point. Framing a Deaf person as someone with a hearing disability rather than a cultural identity means that inappropriate strategies for engagement are deployed and their serious consequences not appreciated. The passing of the BSL Act (2022) firmly establishes in law the indigenous status of BSL as a minority language with associated enhanced obligations for public services, for example guidance on how to meet the needs of people who use BSL. However, the government department’s communication with the public does not include communications with individual members of the public (s2(3). Nonetheless, it is still hoped that this promotion of the use of BSL may start to make a change, where resources can be made available in BSL or the need of training for mainstream professionals is recognised, but only time will tell.

As the findings in this study demonstrate, working between two languages in the context of safeguarding is not easy, particularly because cultural mediation is paramount. Even the most qualified or experienced interpreters might struggle to convey the terminology and concepts involved in child protection and safeguarding to Deaf parents, if the broader understanding of the background is missing. All participants considered that recognition and negotiation of these differences are inescapable requirements to allow them to do their job, and that cultural expertise, over and above linguistic skills alone, was an important aspect that they brought to the assessment process (Oram et al., 2023).

Recommendations for better cultural-linguistic practice

This study explicitly set out to identify lessons learnt and seek suggestions for how practice might be improved in the future. Data analysis and participants’ own ideas suggest some key recommendations:

1. To develop bespoke assessment materials for the Deaf community which can be adapted to match each family so that the linguistic-cultural aspects are placed front and centre. These materials should include alternative ways to ask questions that are more culturally appropriate, a heightened requirement to check understanding at all stages, and a conscious effort to begin from the person’s cultural identity and associated norms, not assumptions based on hearing disability.

2. To give greater consideration of the need for specialist practitioners to be present during the initial assessment. Currently, these are usually completed by a mainstream social worker, and only in some cases are specialists brought in at a later stage. The participants’ experiences detail the time-consuming and costly repair work that can be required, including the need for further independent assessments, mandated by the court on occasion. Interpreters alone are not enough.

3. To educate everyone involved about each other’s cultural and linguistic nuances, as a cornerstone for building trust. Co-working should be encouraged as involving a specialist when required would help relieve the pressure on mainstream social workers and other professionals involved, including interpreters. However, in the absence of a national register (Oram et al., 2023), social workers often lack awareness of the existence of specialists and of the expertise they can contribute, as the participants described from their practice experience.

4. To address the knowledge gaps, Deaf-friendly, accessible parenting resources and safeguarding materials in BSL should be developed, educating Deaf parents earlier in the process to prevent the escalation of safeguarding concerns for their children.

Conclusion

Findings from this study indicate that problems arise when conducting assessments with Deaf parents in child safeguarding contexts where the linguistic and cultural needs of Deaf families are not sufficiently considered. If social workers fail to recognise the different understandings and lived experiences of Deaf parents, it can lead to errors and misunderstandings in the assessment process which have serious negative outcomes, including, in extreme examples, the unnecessary removal of children. Looking to the future, social workers would benefit from being supported through training to understand the needs of Deaf families as a part of a linguistic-cultural minority community.

Culture as well as language needs to be understood and worked with in the assessment process to achieve a holistic understanding of the family context and to identify the strengths as well as the risks present. Integrating this understanding into initial social work pre-qualification training would be a positive first step in building this awareness.

On the other hand, specialist professionals are not widely recognised or being brought in early enough in this context, which is concerning. Action is required to set up a national register and regulatory body to raise awareness of specialist expertise, and how it can support Deaf parents during the safeguarding assessment process. Achieving this will not only save time and money in the long run, but also reduce unnecessary emotional distress.

To conclude, currently the usual processes of parenting assessments appear not to be fit for purpose for parents from the Deaf community . Further research is required in this field to gather perspectives from Deaf parents and establish an overview of what constitutes good practice for LAs across England when they work with this community in child safeguarding, with a view to preventing an escalation in the number of child protection cases.

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).

ORCID iDs

Rosemary Oram

Patricia Cartney

Alys Young

Notes

References

Barn

(2002) Parenting in a ‘Foreign’ climate: the experiences of Bangladeshi mothers in multi-racial Britain. Social Work in Europe 9(3): 28–38.

British Deaf Association (2015) What is Deaf culture? Available at: https://bda.org.uk/what-is-deaf-culture/ (accessed 30 September 2024).

British Deaf Association (2024) Help and resource for Sign Language. Available at: https://www.bda.org.uk/help-resources/ (accessed 10 April 2024).

British Sign Language (Scotland) Act (2015) Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2015/11 (accessed 13 May 2024).

British Sign Language Act (2022) Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/34 (accessed 13 May 2024).

Care Quality Commission (2024) Monitoring the Mental Health act 2022/23. Available at: https://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/monitoring-mental-health-act/2022-2023/inequalities (accessed 3 June 2024).

Children Act (1989) Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/contents (accessed 10 April 2024).

Children Act (2004) Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/31/contents (accessed 10 April 2024).

Children and Families Act (2014) Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/6/contents (accessed 14 May 2024).

10.

Conrad

(1979) The Deaf School Child. London: Harper & Row.

11.

Consortium for Research in Deaf Education (CRIDE) (2023) UK-wide summary: education provision for deaf children in 2022/23. Report, Available at: https://www.ndcs.org.uk/media/9273/cride-2023-uk-wide-summary.pdf (15 April 2024).

12.

Deuchar

(1983) Is British Sign Language an SVO language? In: Kyle

Woll

(eds) Language in Sign: An International Perspective on Sign Language. London: Croom Helm, 69–76.

13.

Deuchar

(1984) British Sign Language. London: Routledge.

14.

Equality Act (2010) Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15 (accessed 30 September 2024).

15.

Fazil

Bywaters

Ali

, et al. (2002) Disadvantage and Discrimination Compounded: the experience of Pakistani and Bangladeshi parents of disabled children in the UK. Disability & Society 17(3): 237–253.

16.

Fenlon

Cormier

Schembri

(2015) Building BSL Signbank: the lemma dilemma revisited. International Journal of Lexicography 28(2): 169–206.

17.

Ferguson-Coleman

Young

(2023) What have YOU done in the past few years?”: deaf BSL users’ experiences of caring for people with dementia during COVID-19. Quality in Ageing and Older Adults 24(4): 139–150.

18.

Foltz

Cuffin

Shank

(2022) Deaf-accessible parenting classes: insights from deaf parents in North Wales. Societies 12(4): 99.

19.

Gile

(2009) Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Revised ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

20.

Harris

Terlektsi

Kyle

(2017) Concurrent and longitudinal predictors of reading for deaf and hearing children in primary school. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 22(2): 233–242.

21.

KHM

Chiang

VCL

Leung

(2017) Hermeneutic phenomenological analysis: the ‘possibility’ beyond ‘actuality’ in thematic analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 73(7): 1757–1766.

22.

Koester

(1992) Intuitive parenting as a model for understanding parent-infant interactions when one partner is deaf. American Annals of the Deaf 137(4): 362–369.

23.

Ladd

(2003) Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

24.

Ladd (2022) Seeing through New Eyes: Deaf Culture and Pedagogies - the Unrecognized Curriculum. San Diego, CA: DawnSignPress.

25.

Marshall

Mason

Rowley

, et al. (2014) Sentence repetition in deaf children with specific language impairment in British sign language. Language Learning and Development 11(3): 237–251.

26.

Maykut

Morehouse

(1994) Beginning Qualitative Researchers: A Philosophical and Practical Guide. Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.

27.

Moores

(2001) Educating the Deaf: Psychology, Principles and Practices. 5th edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

28.

Morgan

(2008) Snowball sampling. In: Given

(ed) Encyclopaedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 816–817.

29.

National Council on Disability (2012) Rocking the Cradle: Ensuring the Rights of Parents with Disabilities and Their Children. Report, US, September. Available at: https://www.ncd.gov/report/rocking-the-cradle-ensuring-the-rights-of-parents-with-disabilities-and-their-children/ (accessed 10 April 2024).

30.

National Deaf Children’s Society (2022) Support to Families to Learn Sign Language. Position paper, UK, October. Available at: https://www.ndcs.org.uk/media/8089/position-paper-on-support-to-families-to-learn-sign-language.pdf (accessed on 3 May 2024).

31.

National Deaf Children’s Society (2023) Lip-reading. Available at: https://www.ndcs.org.uk/information-and-support/language-and-communication/spoken-language/lip-reading/ (accessed 12 June 2024).

32.

National Deaf Children’s Society (2024) National Deaf Children’s Society Note on Department for Education Figures on Attainment for Deaf Children in 2023 (England). Available at: https://www.ndcs.org.uk/information-and-support/professionals/research-and-data/ (accessed 15 April 2024).

33.

Oram

Young

(2024) The modern history of social work with deaf people. Social Work History Network, (accepted and in press).

34.

Oram

Young

Cartney

(2023) Now you see them, now you don’t: professional recognition of specialist professionals working with Deaf British Sign Language parents in child safeguarding. Qualitative Social Work 23(1): 91–107.

35.

Patton

(2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

36.

Pöchhacker

(2008) Interpreting as mediation. In: Valero-Garces

Martin

(eds) Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions and Dilemmas. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 9–26.

37.

Pollard

(1998) Psychopathology. In: Marschark

Clark

(eds) Psychological Perspectives on Deafness. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, Vol. 2, 171–197.

38.

Pollard

Barnett

(2009) Health-related vocabulary knowledge among deaf adults. Rehabilitation Psychology 54(2): 182–185.

39.

Pollard

Rendon

(1999) Mixed deaf-hearing families: maximizing benefits and minimizing risks. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 4(2): 156–157.

40.

Rodham

Fox

Doran

(2015) Exploring analytical trustworthiness and the process of reaching consensus in interpretative phenomenological analysis: lost in transcription. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 18(1): 59–71.

41.

Royal Courts of Justice (2014) Re C (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 128 Case Appeal. Available at: https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/judgments/re-c-a-child-2014-ewca-civ-128/ (accessed on 15 April 2024).

42.

Scottish Sensory Centre (2005) Lipreading Issues. Presentation. Edinburgh, UK, December: University of. Available at: https://www.ssc.education.ed.ac.uk/courses/deaf/ddec05f.html (accessed on 13 May 2024).

43.

Smith

Osborn

(2008) Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In: Smith

(ed) Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods. London: Sage, 53–80.

44.

Simcock

Manthorpe

Tinker

(2024) Giving voice by doing with not doing through: Collaborating with tactile sign language interpreters in interpretative phenomenological analysis research involving older deafblind people. Qualitative Social Work. DOI: 10.1177/14733250241250140.

45.

Smith

Flowers

Larkin

(2021) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. 2nd edition. London: Sage.

46.

Spencer

Bodner-Johnson

Gutfreund

(1992) Interacting with infants with a hearing loss: what can we learn from mothers who are deaf? Journal of Early Intervention 16: 64–78.

47.

Sutton-Spence

Woll

(1999) The Linguistics of British Sign Language: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

48.

Temple

Young

(2004) Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qualitative Research 4(2): 161–178.

49.

Tipton

(2016) Perceptions of the ‘occupational other’: interpreters, social workers and intercultures. British Journal of Social Work 46(2): 463–479.

50.

UK Government (2024) BSL Advisory Board Meeting. Summary, Cabinet Office, UK, February. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-sign-language-bsl-advisory-board-meeting-summaries/bsl-advisory-board-meeting-summary-26-february-2024-including-bsl-version (accessed on 13 May 2024).

51.

Vicary

Ferguson

(2024) Social Work Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: A Methodological Approach for Practice and Research. UK: McGraw-Hill Education.

52.

Wang

(2017) Interpreters = Cultural mediators? TranslatoLogica: A Journal of Translation, Language, and Literature 1: 93–114.

53.

Welbourne

(2002) Culture, children’s rights and child protection. Child Abuse Review 11(6): 345–358.

54.

Wilson

Attrill

Critchley

, et al. (2018) Safeguarding deaf children: a multi-agency focus on actions for change. Practice 30(3): 163–186.

55.

Withey

(2023) The challenges of being a deaf parent with a hearing child (BSL). In: Limping Chicken. Available at: https://www.limpingchicken.com/2023/06/19/insight-being-deaf-and-having-a-hearing-child-is-a-challenge-for-me/ (accessed 12 May 2024).

56.

Young

Oram

Dodds

, et al. (2016) A qualitative exploration of trial-related terminology in a study involving Deaf British Sign Language users. Trials 17(219): 219.