'Too often it's a battle of wills': tackling tensions between council social workers and guardians

From the Front Line is a series where social workers share their experiences on various topics and running issues within the sector. To express an interest or tell us what you'd like to see covered next, email us at anastasia.koutsounia@markallengroup.com

The working relationship between local authority social workers and children's guardians has recently come under the spotlight.

This follows new guidance issued by Cafcass and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services on managing disagreements between the two groups of professionals during care proceedings or deprivation of liberty cases

On the back of its publication, a Community Care poll found that most (83%) of 2,100 practitioners believed that the opinions of guardians were given more weight than those of local authority social workers in court.

Comments under related articles also raised concerns about poor communication between the two groups of professionals.

For the latest installment of From the Front Line, Community Care spoke to two children’s social workers and a retired Cafcass guardian about their experiences and frustrations when working together, and what changes are needed to improve collaboration.

Anabel Akyeampong-Owusu, qualified in  2021

Overall, my experience with guardians has been good, but I can see why some social workers find working with them difficult.

I’ve worked with some amazing guardians who respect the role we play and recognise the work we’ve done with families.

For example, I was working with a family where things were going well until an incident meant we had to urgently enter care proceedings. As soon as she was allocated the case, the guardian called me and said, “I've had a quick read, but I thought I'd call you because you probably know the family really well. So I'll just hear from you what you think needs to happen." That acknowledgement was really important.

From the start, she respected my views and shared ongoing developments. I began going out of my way to keep her updated. Normally, guardians go through our legal team, but because she reached out personally, I did the same. She told me whenever she was visiting, and sometimes we planned visits together.

Overlooking the social worker’s expertise

It almost felt like working with a colleague, and it’s what it should be like, because we are colleagues. Since then, I’ve tried to approach working with guardians in the same way. I’d advise colleagues not to hesitate to show guardians how well you know your families and to invite open communication. If they don’t take it up, at least you’ve offered.

It doesn’t always work out. Some guardians come in, state what they think is best for the child, and say, “As a social worker, you need to go along with that". The conflict arises because it’s not acknowledged that our view is shaped by how well we know and have worked with the family.

Others don’t have any communication with me until a few days before the hearing, when they suddenly send me a string of emails. Meanwhile, the three emails I sent months ago have gone unanswered. They need to share their analysis earlier, not the day before a hearing via legal. That gives us time to discuss any disagreements.

The value of open communication

Transparency is key. Sometimes, guardians tell social workers one thing and families another, which only confuses families about our roles. If we present a united front, families are more likely to understand that we share the same goal: to uphold the child’s best interests.

With the guardian I mentioned earlier, we still disagreed before the final hearing, but because we had spoken openly, I didn’t feel blindsided. Even though the judge agreed with her, I didn’t feel bitter, because I understood her perspective. I felt the family would still be okay.

That’s why communication matters, especially when we don’t see eye to eye. When it’s missing, you end up in court hearing for the first time that the guardian doesn’t support the plan. Regular dialogue prevents those surprises.

Sometimes legal teams can get in the way. But, if social workers and guardians can come together and discuss the things that are important to them and to the families they support, I think it will go a long way.

---

Julia Piotrowski, retired Cafcass guardian, qualified in 1998

For me, becoming a children’s guardian is a very different path from being a social worker. It’s about making the transition and realising you’re not there to “social work” the case.

When the years of experience required for practitioners to become Cafcass guardians dropped, I found many weren’t able to make that shift. They were still social working cases, often being overly critical or aggressive with local authority social workers. I think that came from a lack of both professional and life experience.

Being a guardian is a very different role. Your job isn’t to criticise social workers, but to understand how they've reached their conclusions and care plans. You’re there for the child, so of course you won’t always agree with the social worker.

Why guardians can be more objective

Good communication from the start is essential - making early enquiries, attending the initial child looked after review and building relationships with social workers through open dialogue in meetings, emails or calls.

Complaints about guardians only seeing children two or three times are fair, but our distance can also make us more objective. Social workers live and breathe a case, which naturally makes them more subjective.

If you have open communication, it's easier to say, “I don’t agree with this plan. Have you thought of this?”. I don't think it's a bad thing for those dialogues to take place.

We need to embrace opportunities for joint meetings and frequent communication. A guardian shouldn’t be coming in at the last minute and demanding that the care plan change. The key is to be open and honest about your views, but also willing to listen. Sometimes what the other person says will change your perspective.

The need for social workers to share plans

One frustration I have is when social workers don’t share their plans with children before submitting them to court. It happens a lot: the local authority files a care plan, the guardian speaks to the child and the child doesn’t even know about it.

They need to share their plans with the child and the reasons behind those recommendations. Otherwise, it’s a missed opportunity to get the child's perspective.

On the flip side, if a guardian has more experience than a newly qualified social worker, they should try taking on a nurturing role.

Training and joint meetings are key

Courts also tend to see the guardian as the child expert, so they get thanked while the social worker’s hard work goes unrecognised. That mindset needs to change. Though I’ve seen poor social work reports and inexperienced social workers struggling in court, guardians sometimes need to reflect on their own practice. Training is important on both sides.

Too often it becomes a battle of wills between practitioners, and the child gets lost. Based on the conversations I've seen, it becomes more about the bitterness over their working relationship, rather than the child.

As a guardian, I always believed there was a better way than being critical and difficult. We should all be working together in the best interests of the child.

---

Social worker, qualified in 2000

My experience has been mixed.

I’ve been around long enough to have seen both guardians who had seven or eight years’ social work experience and those with less than three.

I’m not saying it’s all bad. But sometimes it’s hard not to raise an eyebrow when a guardian with just four years’ experience tells you how to run a case. They may have a different oversight, but if they’ve only seen the children once or twice - and in some cases not even the parents - and then propose a completely different plan, I can’t understand how that’s accepted by the court.

Meanwhile, I’m carrying out parenting assessments and child planning, sometimes juggling three concurrent plans that must be time-sensitive and appropriate for the children. We’re working with the whole family, drawing on all the information that led to proceedings.

Have guardians seen that background before making their recommendations?

'Too often, guardians change their position in court'

Unfortunately, the prevailing wisdom is not to trust guardians. It's difficult, because I want to work collaboratively. Too often, guardians will agree with you in discussion and then change their position in court, leaving you confused. You feel like the rug is being pulled from under you.

I’ve had cases where I agreed to a plan based on their concerns, only for them to present something completely different in court. And you’re thinking, “How am I supposed to keep a child safe in that?”.

Often, that’s because they’ve spoken to a parent or family member and not shared it with me. Then I’m left trying to implement an unworkable plan, monitoring and waiting for it to fall apart while the child is caught in the middle.

It also depends a lot on the guardian’s personality. I’ve worked with some who had formidable reputations, were exceptionally knowledgeable, child-focused, and fair. Others were inconsistent - people I wouldn’t want as colleagues - and presented very differently to me than to the parents.

The need for joint training and meetings

I have often found that experienced guardians can take educated risks, according to the law and in the child’s best interests, and they can explain those decisions clearly. Less experienced guardians often stick to the safest option, not because it’s best for the child, but because it protects them and their reputation.

From my experience, in around four out of ten proceedings I've been involved in, the focus shifted to what was right for the parent, rather than the child, because of the guardian’s stance. That’s frustrating.

I do think there should be more joint training. It wouldn’t be costly and would improve efficiency. Guardians should also absolutely be invited to all planning meetings, but there should be additional joint meetings between them and social worker, separate from court. Those would allow a clearer understanding of each other’s views and reasoning and avoid relying only on emails.

It would go a long way to building better collaboration.