Parents' Views on Social Work Interventions in Child Welfare Cases

This article reports the findings of the third part of a three-part research project examining the potential for social workers to shift from a child protection to a child welfare orientation in their practice. Whilst social workers in the United Kingdom have been encouraged to make such changes they have been hampered by concerns to manage risk. Findings from the first two parts of the project had indicated that there was potential for a substantial proportion of child protection work to be redesignated as child welfare work, but that were this was achieved in practice there was evidence of continued influence of child protection processes as social workers sought to manage the risks inherent in child welfare cases. The study reported here sets out to ascertain the views of parents who were subject to child welfare interventions. The findings indicate that while parents feel apprehension with regard to contact with social workers, in the majority of cases successful relationships are formed. It is argued that social workers display considerable skill in monitoring potential risks whilst engaging with families and that the subtleties involved in such activity are not captured by official measures of governance which concentrate on more abstract indicators of performance.

Non-uptake of predictive genetic testing for BRCA1/2 among relatives of known carriers: Attributes, cancer worry, and barriers to testing in a multicenter clinical cohort

BRCA1/2 test decliners/deferrers have received almost no attention in the literature and this is the first study of this population in the United Kingdom. The aim of this multicenter study is to examine the attributes of a group of individuals offered predictive genetic testing for breast/ovarian cancer predisposition who did not wish to proceed with testing at the time of entry into this study. This forms part of a larger study involving 9 U.K. centers investigating the psychosocial impact of predictive genetic testing for BRCA1/2. Cancer worry and reasons for declining or deferring BRCA1/2 predictive genetic testing were evaluated by questionnaire following genetic counseling. A total of 34 individuals declined the offer of predictive genetic testing. Compared to the national cohort of test acceptors, test decliners are significantly younger. Female test decliners have lower levels of cancer worry than female test acceptors. Barriers to testing include apprehension about the result, traveling to the genetics clinic, and taking time away from work/family. Women are more likely than men to worry about receiving less screening if found not to be a carrier. The findings do not indicate that healthy BRCA1/2 test decliners are a more vulnerable group in terms of cancer worry. However, barriers to testing need to be discussed in genetic counseling.

Beyond the ‘Tomlinson Trap’: Analysing the Effectiveness of Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006

One of the intentions underpinning section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 was to provide reassurance to individual volunteers, and voluntary organisations, involved in what the provision called ‘desirable activities’ and including sport. The perception was that such volunteers, motivated by an apprehension about their increased vulnerability to negligence liability, and as driven by a fear of a wider societal compensation culture, were engaging excessively in risk-averse behaviour to the detriment of such socially desirable activities. Academic commentary on section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 has largely regarded the provision as unnecessary and doing little more than restating existing common law practice. This article argues otherwise and, on critically reviewing the emerging jurisprudence, posits the alternative view that section 1, in practice, affords an enhanced level of protection and safeguarding for individuals undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity. Nonetheless, the occasionally idiosyncratic judicial interpretation given to term ‘desirable activity’, potentially compounded by recent enactment of the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015, remains problematic. Two points of interest will be used to inform this debate. First, an analysis of the then House of Lords’ decision in Tomlinson and its celebrated ‘balancing exercise’ when assessing reasonableness in the context of negligence liability. Second, a fuller analysis of the application of section 1 in the specific context of negligence actions relating to the coaching of sport where it is argued that the, albeit limited, jurisprudence might support the practical utility of a heightened evidential threshold of gross negligence.