Men as Fathers in Child Protection

ABSTRACT

When child protection professionals struggle to engage fathers and father figures, assessments may not accurately reflect the combination of resource and risk factors men present for children they care for, potentially endangering children and excluding men. In a mixed methods study in England of fathers and their perspectives on involvement in the child protection system and with their children, fathers persisted as a presence in children’s lives. Yet there was little intervention with men and expectations were low and gendered. The study positioned perceptions of fathers in the child protection system dynamically, in six ways, along a shifting continuum of risk or resource for the child. Encouragingly, most movement was towards positive change and better parenting, although some men became or remained peripheral or excluded. A model is presented to foster earlier change and better interaction between men and social workers. Effective child protection work with men can come with empathic relationship building and more routine direct contact.

IMPLICATIONS

• Engaging fathers should be part of everyday practice in the child protection system and not an unmanageable task.

• Most men in the child protection system pose both a risk and a resource for their child. The actual and potential benefits they bring to their child should be discerned as well as any risks.

• When there is substantiated maltreatment it is crucially important that the children’s fathers and father figures have been fully assessed.

当儿童保护专业人士力图让父亲及代父亲参与进来时，他们的评估不一定能准确反映这意味着多少资源，多少风险，对孩子的潜在危害，对大人的潜在排斥。根据作者采用混合方法、对英格兰的父亲以及他们关于参与儿童保护体系的看法所做的研究。父亲一直存在于孩子的生活中。父亲们很少受到干预，对于他们的期待很低也很性别化。父亲对参与儿童保护体系的看法，可以延一条风险或资源的连续线划分为六种。令人鼓舞的是，大多数移动都朝着积极和更佳的方向，虽然一些父亲边缘化或被排斥了。作者提出了一个尽早变化、尽早（家长与社工之间）互动的模式。有效的、有父亲参与的儿童保护工作可以建立共情关系和更日常的接触。

KEYWORDS:

• Fathers
• Men
• Assessment
• Child Protection

Acknowledgements

This project was funded and supported by the Nuffield Foundation. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Foundation.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by The Nuffield Foundation.