Introduction
It is widely recognised that safeguarding children is a fundamental responsibility within social work, underpinned by legislation and professional values. This essay examines the case of Declan, a 10-year-old boy living with his mother, Susie, who is facing significant challenges, including financial difficulties, potential substance misuse, and inadequate living conditions. Concerns have been raised about Declan’s welfare due to late pickups from school, poor home environment, and an incident of physical aggression from Susie. This analysis explores how Declan can be safeguarded through immediate and medium to long-term actions, applying relevant legislation such as the Children Act 1989 and statutory guidance. It is argued that a combination of legal frameworks, professional standards, and evidence-based practice must be employed to prioritise Declan’s safety and well-being, while also considering support for Susie under adult-focused legislation like the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The discussion integrates critical analysis with reference to published literature to ensure a robust response to the case.
Immediate Actions for Declan’s Safety
It cannot be denied that the immediate priority in Declan’s case is to ensure his safety, given the evident risks in his current environment. Under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (CA 1989), local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need within their area (UK Government, 1989). Declan’s situation, marked by inadequate living conditions (e.g., rodent droppings, dampness, and lack of electricity) and Susie’s apparent alcohol use alongside aggressive behaviour, suggests a significant risk of harm. Furthermore, Susie’s statement that Declan “can go into care” indicates a potential unwillingness or inability to provide adequate care at this time.
It is proposed that an initial assessment under s.17 CA 1989 be conducted to determine whether Declan is a child in need or at risk of significant harm under Section 47 of the same Act. Given the physical incident involving Susie throwing her phone and striking Declan, alongside neglect indicators, a Section 47 enquiry is likely necessary to assess immediate risk (UK Government, 1989). Statutory guidance, as outlined in Working Together to Safeguard Children (Department for Education, 2018), emphasises the importance of multi-agency collaboration in such cases. It is suggested that the social worker liaise with the school safeguarding lead and other relevant professionals to gather a holistic view of Declan’s circumstances.
If immediate risk is confirmed, temporary removal under an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) under s.44 CA 1989 may be considered to place Declan in a safe environment, potentially with his grandparents, Harry and Sherine, if they are deemed suitable following an initial kinship care assessment (UK Government, 1989). As noted by Johns (2023), prompt action in cases of evident harm is critical to prevent escalation, aligning with Social Work England’s professional standards which mandate prioritising the child’s safety (Social Work England, 2021).
Medium to Long-Term Interventions
Beyond immediate safety measures, it is essential to develop sustainable strategies to address the root causes of Declan’s vulnerability. Under the Children Act 1989, the paramountcy principle (s.1) dictates that Declan’s welfare must remain the primary consideration in all decisions (UK Government, 1989). It is argued that a Child in Need Plan under s.17 CA 1989 could be implemented to provide ongoing support, including financial assistance and parenting programmes for Susie, to improve her capacity to care for Declan. Additionally, a referral to housing services to address the unsafe living conditions is vital, as inadequate housing directly impacts child welfare (Brammer, 2024).
If Susie’s unwillingness to engage persists, or if further assessments indicate ongoing risk, alternative care arrangements may be necessary. It is recognised that kinship care with Declan’s grandparents could be explored under the Family and Friends Care Statutory Guidance (Department for Education, 2010). This guidance underscores the importance of maintaining family connections where safe and appropriate, provided a full assessment of Harry and Sherine’s suitability is undertaken (Department for Education, 2010). However, as Carr and Goosey (2024) caution, such arrangements must be rigorously evaluated to ensure they meet the child’s needs and do not replicate existing risks.
Moreover, Susie’s potential alcohol misuse and mental health challenges suggest the relevance of adult-focused legislation, specifically the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005). Under s.2 MCA 2005, it must be presumed that Susie has capacity unless proven otherwise, but her behaviour during the social worker’s visit (e.g., appearing under the influence) raises questions about her decision-making ability in relation to parenting (UK Government, 2005). It is recommended that a capacity assessment be conducted, following the MCA Code of Practice (Department of Constitutional Affairs, 2007), to determine whether interventions such as substance misuse support or mental health services are required. As Brown (2020) highlights, addressing parental challenges is often integral to long-term child safeguarding.
Application of Professional Values
It should be pointed out that professional values are central to applying the law effectively in this case. Social Work England’s Professional Standards (2021) mandate that social workers act with integrity, prioritise the rights and safety of service users, and work collaboratively. In Declan’s case, this involves balancing his immediate safeguarding needs with a non-judgmental approach to Susie’s struggles. It is often argued that social workers must advocate for both the child and the parent where possible, seeking to empower families through support rather than solely punitive measures (Thompson, 2024). Therefore, while initiating protective measures for Declan, it is imperative to offer Susie access to resources like counselling or addiction services, ensuring compliance with anti-oppressive practice principles.
Critical Analysis and Challenges
It will be recognised that applying legislation in real-world scenarios is rarely straightforward. One challenge in Declan’s case is the potential tension between the paramountcy principle under CA 1989 and Susie’s rights as a parent. As Herring (2023) notes, while child welfare takes precedence, parents must be given opportunities to demonstrate change unless risks are irreparable. Additionally, resource constraints within social services may delay interventions, a limitation acknowledged in much literature on child protection (Clawson et al., 2025). It is thus argued that social workers must prioritise clear communication with Susie and Declan, ensuring transparency about processes and decisions, as advocated by Evans and Harvey (2022).
Conclusion
In summary, safeguarding Declan requires a multifaceted approach rooted in the Children Act 1989 and supported by statutory guidance like *Working Together to Safeguard Children*. Immediate actions, such as a Section 47 enquiry and potential use of an EPO, are critical to address the evident risks of harm. Medium to long-term strategies, including kinship care assessments and support plans under s.17 CA 1989, alongside capacity considerations for Susie under the MCA 2005, offer a pathway to sustainable safety and stability for Declan. Professional values, guided by Social Work England’s standards, must underpin these interventions to ensure ethical practice. Importantly, while legislative frameworks provide structure, the complexities of family dynamics and resource limitations highlight the need for adaptability and advocacy in social work practice. The implications of this case underscore the importance of balancing child protection with family support, ensuring that interventions are both protective and empowering.
References
- Brammer, A. (2024) Social Work Law. 6th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
- Brown, R. (2020) The Approved Mental Health Professional’s Guide to Mental Health Law. 5th ed. London: Learning Matters.
- Carr, H. and Goosey, D. (2024) Law for Social Workers. 17th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Clawson, R., Warwick, L. and Fyson, R. (2025) The Child Protection Handbook. 4th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
- Department for Education (2010) Family and Friends Care: Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities. Department for Education.
- Department for Education (2018) Working Together to Safeguard Children. Department for Education.
- Department of Constitutional Affairs (2007) Mental Capacity Act 2005: Code of Practice. London: TSO.
- Evans, M. and Harvey, D. (2022) Social Work Law: Applying the Law in Practice. St Albans: Critical Publishing.
- Herring, J. (2023) Family Law. 11th ed. Harlow: Pearson.
- Johns, R. and Harry, J. (2023) Using the Law in Social Work. 9th ed. London: Learning Matters.
- Social Work England (2021) Professional Standards. Social Work England.
- Thompson, N. (2024) Understanding Social Work: Preparing for Practice. 6th ed. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
- UK Government (1989) Children Act 1989. UK Government.
- UK Government (2005) Mental Capacity Act 2005. UK Government.
