Key message eight- Seeing beyond the mother: father inclusive practice and drawing on the broader family and friends network

There's growing awareness both in research and in practice of the importance of ensuring that fathers are included at every step of the way in pre-birth work. We heard in the Born into Care research that often fathers weren't included when called to assessment activity, and the reasons for this were varied and complex.

Often fathers were seen in a binary way. Either is a risk or a resource rather than a much more nuanced approach, in which in many cases they may be both birth plans. Where there was any mention of domestic abuse in the in the family's history led to men being excluded in quite a draconian way, and the data reflects this. We know less about fathers than we know about mothers. But there's some really important research. And you'll be able to look at that in the links below.

Midwives told us that if there was any mention in children's social care records of domestic abuse, often this led to quite a knee jerk reaction with fathers being excluded from hospitals, which further ostracised the men involved in the women and babies lives and led to them feeling very marginalised.

Practitioners told us that sometimes they felt fearful of men where they didn't have enough detail about their backgrounds or again, where there'd been any mention of domestic abuse or violence.

The need for a much more nuanced approach to domestic abuse has already been discussed in the previous change project, led by Bridget Featherstone, and it's really worth having a look at those resources as part of your pre-birth planning.

The recurrent care research into fathers in family justice systems has really shone a light onto the adversities and disadvantage faced by fathers, too. However, this might be perceived in different ways or enacted in different ways, and we absolutely know that the service response is often lacking for fathers to make sense of their histories and to provide them with the support and help that they need, as well as thinking more inclusively about fathers.

There is also a need to think about how to engage the broader family and friend network to draw on their support in that pregnancy period. We know that there is a growing evidence base around the use of family group conferences, how family led plans can really work to offer the support required and to bring about the change that's perhaps needed to reassure professionals that that baby is safe to go home.

However, what the research also points to is that often where family group conferences are used pre birth, that this happens very late in pregnancy and that the focus is more on alternative caregivers for the baby. If that baby isn't going to go home, we think we're really missing a trick here because even if the family members aren't the right people to care for the baby long term, that doesn't mean that they don't have skills and resources to support the parents during the pregnancy and help them to deal with the issues that have brought them to the attention of social care in the first place.

So we're advocating early family group conferences to really make the best use of that family and friend network. We also know that in some cases in those early stages of pregnancy, what parents need is support to build their network. They may not have the network of family and friends that can support them. If we get in early and have a look and map out those networks, we have a better chance of getting that support in place

Below you can find some examples of local authorities who have developed robust pre-birth. Family group conference arrangements and from the family rights group who accredit family group conferences and really make sure that they meet the required standards.

Hello there. My name's Dr. Georgia Phillip, um, and I am a lecturer in Social Work and Sociology in the Centre for Research on Children and Families at the University of East Anglia. I'm gonna talk, um, about the findings and practice messages from research that I've been involved in for the last 10 years or so, um, about father's experiences of children's services and family justice, and in particular, um, some work we've done recently around fathers in repeat care proceedings. 

I'm gonna offer you some, um, broader starting points for thinking about, um, engaging fathers, working with fathers better. I'm gonna share some key sort of takeaway messages, if you like, from our studies. 

So why should we work better with fathers? Um, an opening point to think about is the ways that fathers can arguably opt out of parenting, um, that are simply not available to mothers. Um, but at the same time, fathers are much more likely to be seen as, as optional, you know, in terms of the way that professionals see them particularly, but also how they see themselves or how other family members see them. 

So we are dealing with this problem of opting out and yet being seen as optional. Um, and in our work with fathers, particularly marginalised fathers, particularly the fathers that, uh, you're thinking about in the context of repeat care proceedings or pre-birth work, the priority, I guess, is that to be providing both challenge and support. Um, because if we don't work better with fathers, we have a problem in both directions. It's arguably the case that currently we don't hold fathers accountable to the same degree that we do mothers. Um, and this is a problem for mothers as well as fathers as well as for children. So we need to work better with them to offer that, that challenge and accountability. But equally, we don't support or validate fathers as parents in their own right well enough. So we need to do that. And if we don't do that, again, that is a problem for mothers as well as for fathers and children. So it's that combination, that tension often between offering both challenge and support. Um, and our sense from the research is that there simply is a greater confidence and willingness to hold that tension, to hold that space, if you like. 

For mothers, a much less confidence, and much less willingness to hold that tension of the both challenge and support for fathers. What our research really showed was the importance of attending, you know, noticing and responding and attending to gender difference, and where that makes a difference. 

That happens in different ways in terms of how professionals, uh, how we might understand and respond and sort of interpret the behaviours of mothers and fathers. How we recognise that their experience as parents is gonna be different, um, but also in the context of services, how we design, how we, uh, evaluate how we manage services. It's really important to be specific and transparent about which parents we are working with, and not to use that default, you know, language of parent and parents. Often that's a proxy for mothers, so we don't always know who we are working with or we don't spot that maybe, um, services are working much more with mothers and not really considering, um, how to engage fathers.  

And then this last point, we really, really need to, to appreciate and see fatherhood as a generative thing, as something which is directly linked to, uh, reflection and change in people's lives. Um, including, including just simply seeing change as possible. I think if we, if we recognise that that generative potential of fatherhood, uh, something that could trigger or, or motivate or be part of achieving change in people's lives in men's lives, um, that that would be really powerful and constructive. I want to briefly work through some takeaway points from our research. 

Um, uh, uh, and particularly from the work we did with fathers in repeat care proceedings. There is this strong sense of the need to recognise the vulnerability, to see fathers in repeat care proceedings as vulnerable. Um, that yes, they may, you know, they may pose, they may present risks arising from those vulnerabilities, but they need to also be seen as at risk themselves or as having needs having that... those vulnerabilities are interpreted in the, in terms of needs and not just risks. 

Um, again, the profiles, what if you compare the research, um, that we did with fathers to that which, um, has been done with mothers, um, there are real strong similarities in terms of their profiles or the, you know, in terms of early life history in terms of the pro... presenting, um, and cumulative problems and adversities that, that, uh, mothers and fathers are facing.  

So things like patterns of unresolved childhood trauma. Um, the impact of that, that, that, um, operates across the life course around emotional regulation, the ability to, uh, you know, form safe relationships. And again, our research really demonstrated the emotional impact of child removal on fathers and the way that that is really profound and long lasting, just as it is with mothers. But again, what we saw, um, is that the, so, so though their experiences are comparable, um, their gender differences, maybe in terms of how their pain is expressed or how it's defended against, so what, you know, behaviours or coping strategies. But in particular, there are gender differences in how mothers’ and fathers’ experiences are interpreted by professionals and how they're then responded to. And that's a really important point to think about in terms of developing practice with fathers. 

Um, and again, as with the research on mothers, our research also highlights the, the need to be really conscious of the effects of shame and humiliation on people's, on, you know, on, on mothers and fathers capacity to, uh, you know, to make change in their lives. Um, uh, and so in terms of father engagement, building working relationships with, with those highly marginalised fathers is going to have to recognise what is shaming, um, about that process, or how to minimise shame and humiliation and, and, and find ways to, to build relationships without that or to minimise that.  

Another finding from the research or, ano, another message, if you like, is the, is that there is such unmet need. There is a really, uh, important need, urgent need for holistic, longer-term support for fathers when children are removed. So that's gonna include, you know, the pre-birth context. Um, again, there are services developing, um, for mothers around that, that is skillful, sensitive, difficult, hard one work, but we need an equivalent service response for fathers, either in their own right or as part of, of of couples, because in a sense, we need to do that work because you've, you've got these two elements. It's about trying to avoid excluding fathers from being suitable, seen as suitable fathers in the future. So for any future children, but also to try and avoid excluding them from being able to potentially reclaim fatherhood with existing children. And again, that can look different. That's not necessarily about having direct contact with, with those children. So fathers really need that support to, um, underly... you know, to, to address those underlying causes of their difficulties. Again, there's a lot of development around being trauma-informed in practice, but we need to extend the tools that that brings, um, to fathers as well. 

Uh, and again, i, I guess, uh, another point here is the encouragement to, for, for practitioners in all kinds of settings, to just to think more broadly and more creatively about ways in which birth fathers can be supported to retain some kind of stake in fatherhood that could benefit their children in the future. So again, that could take many forms. It could simply about be, be about providing information, medical information, uh, you know, life history stuff, identity work. Um, it could be family time or, you know, in various forms, whatever. But nonetheless, it's just that professional investment in, in helping fathers to retain some kind of stake again, either for current children or future children. 

Ok. So I've shared a number of, if you like, general practice messages. I think that these are relevant in a number of professional contexts that be health professionals, children's social care, legal professionals, all kinds of ways. So, you know, the challenge I guess I'm putting to you is to think about how these might apply to the setting that you are working in and what you could change or adjust or the way that you could, uh, you know, what, what you could do, um, to engage and work with fathers better.  

Another danger, I think, for practice is to see the work on fathers and the work on mothers as if they were in opposition. Um, and you know, that is a mistake. Um, the work that we've done around fathers and father engagement, um, again, it's it's complimentary. It builds on, um, uh, on the work that's been done with mothers already. Um, and, and it's not a zero sum game, I guess is what I'm encouraging you to see. Um, you know, supporting fathers, as I, as I said at the start, um, if we don't work effectively with fathers, it's a problem in both of those directions. You know, if we fail to hold fathers accountable for the safe care of children, then that's a problem. But also if we fail to validate and support them as parents in their own right, um, you know, then, then, then we are failing in, in the other direction. Um, and so the father's work and the mother's work wherever possible, it's important to bring those two things together. 

And again, um, I guess an over-arching, I dunno if it's a tip or a suggestion, really, is to develop a more gender sensitive way of, um, thinking about these things in that, uh, you know, where does gender difference make a difference? Where are the points of difference and where are the points of similarity either in fathers and mothers experience of parenting, but also in our professional context in how we perceive mothers and fathers, how we respond to them, how we interpret what they do and what they say, um, and how we validate or prioritise them in their parenting roles.  

Um, so yeah, so, so I would just encourage you to, to recognise that, that, that the father's, you know, the, the research and the practice work around father engagement is not being presented as, uh, you know, as in opposition or as taking resources or time away from, um, the support work with mothers. These two things are, are crucial, um, you know, for in improving the outcomes for children and families. 

So some of the sort of key principles, uh, this child centred that we need to all the time keep the child's needs central to the process. The family is the primary decision making group. The, the process is about enabling that to happen. It's about widening the network. We use that, that phrase in, in family group conferencing about widening the circle and you're looking all the time to, to, to increase that network. But always with, uh, always driven by the family and by those that have got parental authority within the family as well.  

The independent co-ordinator role is really key. Uh, you are working at the family's pace. You're gonna look to a neutral venue. Uh, this is about making it a comfortable family friend, friendly process. Uh, always has private family time. Um, you will provide all the resources to enable the, the process to happen effectively. You'll provide food, there'll be a creche for, for children, younger children as well.   

So, so it feels like an informal process. It doesn't, it's not like a, a usual formal, um, social work, professionally led meeting. Often families will break into smaller sub-groups. They'll go out and have a cigarette, that it will be a more informal decision-making process. You are looking for the plan to be agreed and resourced unless there's a risk to the child that then it, it's family's decision making, right? To determine what should happen for their children unless there's a, a cause for concern. And less of the child welfare consort concern that then would be the kind of the line in the sand about where the state perhaps needs to have a say in things. 

And it, it, the FGC [Family Group Conference] kinda sets out more clearly where that line is for families. Families often are very uncertain about the, the, the, the rights when they're engaging with, uh, children's services.  

So some of the kind of key principles, I think, um, it's... it builds on family strengths. You're looking all the time for what are the, what are the strengths that the family have that they're bringing to this process. You're not looking at, you're moving away if you can, from going over historical stuff. You're looking to what the future needs to be, what needs to be addressed going forward. It's about empowering families, giving them that sense of control over decisions, which often they will not feel that they've got. Um, and, and also about, I think part of that is about providing clear information. I think when you go to the wider family, often they won't be familiar with what the issues are. They won't be, they won't have been in the room when there's been concerns have been shared. 

And this often will be the first time they'll get to hear a fuller account about whatever the, the concerns are. Um, it's about collective responsibility. There's a kind of notion in some of the research about FGCs democratising decision making, opening up decisions across a wider, a wider group, and looking to the different ways that that wider family can, uh, be, can offer support. And, and if you look at the FGC plans, they're often very, very practical things. They're kind of things that only families can bring to the table in relation to decision making. Often, you know, about, about doing activities, bringing people to meetings, practical things. Usually, uh, it's, it's been sensitive to family cultures. You are looking to the family to how they make decisions. What are the best ways that they can come together and how can you, um, how can you be sensitive to whatever the issues might be culturally to enable that.  

So a lot of services will look to offer a co-ordinator from the same, uh, background as a family. Uh, the fact that the meeting often will be in the language of the family and interpreters, the kind of ideas that interpreters are provided for the professionals. 

So it's kind of really, there's a, a, you're looking at it through a cultural, culturally sensitive lens, really. It mobilises resources within the family, uh, and it's restorative and solution focused. So often there will be breakdowns in, in that wider family network. And through coming together in this way and having a future focused, uh, and sort of problem-solving approach with lots of preparation, then often that helps to mend some of those challenges that, that, that there will have been historically within families, but also in relation to agencies. There's quite a lot of evidence around that it improves the relationship between the family and the social worker, and that the a... the families get to understand better the perspective of the local authority as well. 

So this is just a slide, just, um, making clear about the, the, the, the continuum of family engagement in decision making. There is lots of different family strengths models, and we would argue that that FGCs are at the top of that list, really, where the family is the lead agency in making decisions. Um, there are kind of with a lot of service of, of local authorities, often family network meetings. And we would argue that that is not as enabling of the, for the family to come together and be the lead decision making group within, uh, those, those meetings often they're very professionally led meetings often don't involve that wider family.  

The, the, the process of the FGC enables the family to be the lead group in, in decision making. It's really looking to the resources as decision makers. So it's quite, I think it's quite important to think about that continuum of family, uh, involvement in decision making. And the next slide kind of just set, sets that out in a little bit more detail. If you think about the, the, in, in an FGC, the co-ordinator's independence in, in many family network meetings, particularly Signs of Safety meetings. That work is being done by the social worker. And there are a lot of challenges about that, where a social worker is managing, um, the, uh, the, the decision-making relation to the child alongside, uh, trying to bring people to the table as decision makers. And I think the evidence is that in those family network meetings, they're much less effective at bringing that wider network into the meeting. Um, some of the, the Signs of Safety research, uh, that What Works Centre research, looking at Signs of Safety demonstrated that predominantly the people that the family members that come into those family network meetings are the, are just the parents. So not managing to get that wider network, but because of the degree of preparation, because your task as a co-ordinator is to look to that wider, uh, network and to problem solve their engagement and to be able to meet with them all, 

then you're gonna be much more successful in, in involving them in decision making and particularly around involving paternal family and decision making. 

What the FGC is doing is looking to engage that paternal family. And if you able to engage the father, then you're also, then usually that's a gateway to the wider paternal family as well. This is just a little bit of evidence from the, uh, Early Intervention Foundation in relation to Camden FGC service. Um, 70, 79% of families who had done an, an early help FGC, so this is a referral pre, uh, social work involvement. They, they 79% re, remain free from further help early help or social work intervention within 12 months. So kind of avoiding that escalation of, uh, social work involvement for those families. 98% of those families when asked said that the early help had been offered at the right time. The FGC had been offered at the right time, and more than 80% of families said six months after their FGC, they feel more in control and better able to cope.   

So I think the argument though is about getting in early. There's, there seems to be some evidence around families, uh, uh, recognising that that's useful for them. And generally when families are asked, they, the message we that often they're giving is that they would rather that it was offered earlier. And, and particularly with the, uh, PLO [Public Law Outline] and, and sort of the sort of push from, uh, in relation to pre-proceedings, often services now are kinda refocusing their FGC offer, uh, quite late, um, when, when families are saying they want it earlier. And the evidence is that it's certainly beneficial earlier, earlier as, as well, as well.  

But just a couple of slides, just thinking about some of the challenges and cons... and considerations in relation to FGCs pre, uh, and offering it in relation to pre-birth, about offering it early enough. And I think the services that have managed to do this well where there's a pathway into the FGC service, uh, from, from early, much earlier on in relation to the pregnancy, that seems to be a key factor in, in, in, in the, in FGCs working effectively, uh, around sort of, uh, parents being anxious and particularly if young parents may be... challenges around their engagement in relation to the referral and how, where they may be uncertain about whether this is the right thing, thing for them. 

And I think we've seen some good examples. I think Newport was one example where they were, the FGC service was teaming up with another service that was working with those young parents and then facilitating their engagement within the FGCs process as well. 

So there may be particular challenges around, uh, around engagement. And if you're able to work collaboratively with other agencies that are working with those, with that, uh, with that parent to be, then there may be a better chance of engaging them in the FGC and that sort of issue around sufficient time to test out a plan that the family might make.  

So it, again, that links back to the, to the referral being made earlier enough to then give the family the opportunity to test out the plan and then to come back together again if things are not working out, um, as, as they wanted it to, you know, and often you find with FGCs, you may, um, you may manage to engage more reluctant family members when you have a review as well. So enough time for the family to revisit the decision making, uh, as well, uh, you know, through a review. 

I, I did also just want to mention the, the recent, I think it was April the Cumberland ruling, um, which mentioned the importance of allowing families time to consider coming forward and to be able to seek legal advice, which is certainly something we're looking at in Kent, making sure that families are signposted to getting correct advice. 

So we have a local multi-agency hub, which is held monthly, um, where a social worker presents, uh, a family as part of the pre-birth risk assessments and is offered support and advice about making a collaborative plan. So like health would go to that, possibly early health, so making sure we're getting the right agencies in. But an FGC, I would attend that sometimes and, and offer an FGC as part of that and obviously push that.

Often our plans contain birth plans, um, so that to make sure somebody's with mum, uh, when she's having baby and what that's gonna look like. Um, we've had, you know, families who are homeless. I've had families, you know, mums living in a tent, all these sorts of things. So we... it's really good and useful to do that, you know, pre-birth planning, absolutely key to, to putting that support network around, uh, post baby’s birth. We would review that plan to see, um, what, you know, if that plan was holding, whether anything needed to be tweaked or, or changed. So we have a very clear template of what we are expecting to do or hoping to do with families.

In the last financial year, we had 198 referrals. Um, 49 of these were also part of legal planning, um, or PLO [Public Law Outline] at point of referral. Um, we had 148 actual FGCs held, which is 16% of our work. Uh, 4% of the babies referred went into care post-FGC, so that's only measured at six months and that does also include mother and baby placements, but of where, where, um, parents declined the Family Group Conference, of the ones that we had, that were no further action because they didn't want to have an FGC, 7% of those babies went into care. Um, which is an interesting figure. Um, I'd like to do that figure again at the end of 12 months to see if there's a, a, a change in that because some of those mother and baby placements might meanthat baby's also gone home. 

Um, 90 of the parents referred were open to social care as children themselves and 117 of the parents referred had previous children in social care. So I think those are really high figures. Um, I just wanted to do a very brief, uh, case study and that this is one that I'm doing 'cause I went to this FGC, so I remember it really well.

Um, but Teagan came in, she was 24, um, she'd had, uh, learning difficulties and she'd attended a special needs school. She also had severe epilepsy and her mum had died four months before of her heart attack.

So Teagan was on her own. She was living in a small village. Um, one of the ex mining villages in Kent, Connor was dad to unborn, but actually she wasn't with Connor anymore. She had a new partner, um, who was a taxi driver. This came in really high end. It was CP [Child Protection] that had been legal planning.

There was a high level of worry about her disability and about her epilepsy that she might, um, take the baby home from hospital, pass out, not know why was this man involved with Teagan, who was, why did he want to get involved with someone who was pregnant? 

So there was a huge, a very heightened case when it came into us and it actually went to our access resource panel where they asked for funding to go into proceedings. Um, and they were told to wait until the Family Group Conference had happened before they... and come back if they still needed it after that.

So, so we had a Family Group Conference and this is the makeup of what it looked like afterwards. So you can see that there's a lot of people around mum actually. And we were able to bring all those people together.

Um, so Luke's baby, we knew mum was carrying a boy by then. Her sister who was older than her and her brother came along as long as, as great aunt, grandmother, cousins and we held it in the local community centre one evening. Um, dad didn't want to come, but he did want us to feed his views in and we'd been to visit him and his mum about the contact that he wanted to have with Luke once he was born. 

Um, we made a very strong plan, a birth plan and then a plan of Teagan to go and live with her sister for three weeks following the birth of Luke so that she could be monitored all the time and, um, then she would return home to her flat. So I think it's visually quite strong that one. And that was in January 22 when we had it in, in April 22. It was closed to all services and I checked yesterday before coming here and it's remained closed. 

So actually Teagan's really managing well in the community with all her family around her. Um, so it's just interesting to see how it could go from such a high level of anxiety or professional anxiety to closure really. 

• This journal paper by Ariane Critchley highlights many of the issues regarding father inclusion in pre-birth work.  
• The Up Against It report by Georgia Philip and colleagues provides an analysis of the rates and characteristics of fathers appearing in repeat care proceedings. It also discusses the association between early adversity and the emotional impact of recurrence on fathers.  
• A further report, Counting Fathers In shares fathers' perspectives on their experiences of the child protection system.

• A large-scale evaluation by Foundations in 2023 assessed the impact of introducing FGCs at the pre-proceedings stage in England. It examined their effect on children entering care, family outcomes, and cost benefits. You can also find a separate report from Foundations which details the implications for policy and practice.
• Lifelong Links is a pioneering initiative developed by Family Rights Group that helps children in care and care leavers establish lasting, supportive relationships with people who care about them. 
• Family Finding helps reconnect children and youth with relatives and supportive adults to build lasting networks that provide stability, permanency, and support for their long-term wellbeing.
• These open access resources from Research in Practice, developed with Family Rights Group, offer insights into the FGC process, evidence on its effectiveness, distinctions from other strengths-based family meetings, and the significance of authentic family-driven decision-making.

Critchley, A. (2022). Giving up the ghost: Findings on fathers and social work from a study of pre-birth child protection. Qualitative Social Work, 21(3), 580-601. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250211019463. 

Foundations. (2023). Family group conferencing at pre-proceedings stage. https://foundations.org.uk/our-work/publications/family-group-conferencing-at-pre-proceedings-stage/#:~:text=Implications%20for%20Policy-,The%20use%20of%20Family%20Group%20Conference%20at%20pre%2Dproceedings%20stage,when%20they%20became%20looked%20after 

Nurmatov, B.U., Foster, C., Bezeczky, Z., Owen, J., El-Banna, A., Mann, M., Petrou, S., Kemp, A., Scourfield, J., Forrester, D., & Turley, R. (2020). Impact of shared decision-making family meetings on children’s out-of-home care, family empowerment and satisfaction: A systematic review. What Works for Children’s Social Care. https://whatworks-csc.org.uk/research-report/impact-of-shared-decision-making-family-meetings-on-childrens-out-of-home-care-family-empowerment-and-satisfaction/ 

Philip, G., Clifton, J., & Brandon, M. (2019). The trouble with fathers: The impact of time and gendered-thinking on working relationships between fathers and social workers in child protection practice in England. Journal of Family Issues, 40(16), 2288-2309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X18792682 

Philip, G., Youansamouth, L., Bedston, S., Broadhurst, K., Hu, Y., Clifton, J., & Brandon, M. (2020). “I had no hope, I had no help at all”: Insights from a first study of fathers and recurrent care proceedings. Societies, 10(4), 89. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc10040089 

• Critchley, A. (2022). Giving up the ghost: Findings on fathers and social work from a study of pre-birth child protection. Qualitative Social Work, 21(3), 580-601. 
• Mason, C., Broadhurst, K., Ward, H., Barnett, A., & Holmes, L. (2022). Born into Care: Developing best practice guidelines for when the state intervenes at birth. Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.  
• Maxwell, N., Scourfield, J., Featherstone, B., Holland, S., & Tolman, R. (2012). Engaging fathers in child welfare services: A narrative review of recent research evidence. Child & Family Social Work, 17(2), 160-169. 
• Philip, G., Youansamouth, L., Bedston, S., Broadhurst, K., Hu, Y., Clifton, J., & Brandon, M. (2020). “I had no hope, I had no help at all”: Insights from a first study of fathers and recurrent care proceedings. Societies, 10(4), 89.