The greatest challenge experienced by anyone who works as an advocate is being able to provide an adequate voice to those who normally are not heard. The child protection party was created with the view that all people, regardless of background, race, ethnicity, disability, social or economic background, everyone needs to be represented equally.
It is evident from our daily work, working with people who do not normally have a voice, that the need for people to articulate appropriately their ideas, goal, objectives, and complaints is necessary in order to bring about change. This work is not easy at a number of level. The parent is often extremely emotional, unable to articulate appropriately how they feel, is antagonistic to the social workers they encounter and push back against what other people are telling them they should do and how they should live their lives. Social workers often lack empathy, fail to understand the context in which a parent finds themselves, are shocked and intimidated by the parents response to them, are punitive, and failed to engage with the client in a meaningful way. Both of these factors collide, thus forming an impasse which is going to restrict the way by which both parties can communicate effectively and reach an appropriate outcome.
It is the role of the advocate to find a way that will bridge these sometimes insurmountable hurdles. There is a fine line that exists between the parents needs and the social workers, fears and resentments. I phrased it in this way, because we often think of the parents as having the fears and resentments. But when we view it differently and we see that social workers have those same feeling and that it is the parents needs, which are not being met, it changes the dynamic and helps us to see the issue differently. It is therefore the role of the advocate to understand everybody's perspective, particularly how they feel about each other. It rarely happened, but it would be an interesting conversation to discuss how each party feels about the other.
Not long ago I had to attend a meeting where a social worker had previously felt threatened by a parent. It interested me that the social worker who was feeling intimidated was present at the meeting, but it was her supervisor who spoke about the level of intimidation that the other social worker experienced from the parent. The social worker who had been intimidated chose to say nothing, when stating how she felt about the behaviour of the parent may have helped the parent to understand how her behaviour impacts others. By providing a voice to the intimidation that she felt may have helped the parent to understand what she did and how it makes other people feel. So why didn't the social worker use this opportunity to talk about what had happened to her? Perhaps she still felt intimidated by the parent and believed that by raising this issue would further antagonise the parent. What it demonstrated to me was that the social worker failed to understand how giving a voice to her issues with this client may resolve the conflict and the ill feeling that sits between them.
When one fails to manage conflict, the conflict escalates. As advocates, we see this over and over again. Parents act badly, social workers respond in a negative way, and no one talks to the other party about what this means to them. Parents aren't interested in having this conversation because they are focused on having their children returned to them and blaming the department for the removal in the first place. The social workers generally, but not always, see the parent as the problem and as a failed individual and therefore don't deserve to be heard. Both sides are often entrenched in their beliefs about the other and this tends to cement their positions.
I am currently managing an issue where grandparents want to meet with the Department to discuss access for them and a few other issues. The department doesn't want to meet with the grandparents because they know that the issues which the grandparents wish to discuss have been talked about on many occasions. The department are fearful of the situation escalating if they directly tell the grandparents that they don't wish to have the meeting, so I am left in the middle to facilitate an appropriate outcome. I can provide a voice for the grandparents as well as the department. I am in a position where I can way up both sides of this issue and make a decision about what is in the best interest of the grandparents. In this instance I know that it would be unhelpful to have a meeting when the department sees it is unnecessary.
Even though it is unlikely that a meeting will be held, it is important that the advocate finds a way to present their clients concerns in a different way, perhaps a more creative way. It is the advocates obligation to ensure that their clients are heard even though the forum for them to have a voice is unavailable.
The people that we represent all have something of value to say. They may not articulate what they need to say appropriately, it may appear to be intimidating to others, it may be emotionally laden. It should be a responsibility of the social workers within the department to understand the context and to empathise with the the parent. Failure to do so is poor social work, and it should be named as such.
The role of an advocate is vital when it comes to changing the dialogue between the two warring parties. If skilled social work was being practised there would be no need for an advocate. That we are necessary and present is a strong indicator that much needs to change.
