Explicit argumentation as a supervisory tool for decision making in child protection cases involving human rights issues

This paper addresses the problems often faced by social workers and their supervisors in decision making where human rights considerations and child protection concerns collide. High profile court cases in the United Kingdom and Europe have consistently called for social workers to convey more clarity when justifying their reasons for interfering with human rights in child protection cases. The themes emerging from these case law decisions imply that social workers need to be better at giving reasons and evidence in more explicit ways to support any actions they propose which cause interference with Convention Rights. Toulmin (1958, 1985) offers a structured approach to argumentation which may have relevance to the supervision of child protection cases when social workers and managers are required to balance these human rights considerations. One of the key challenges in this balancing act is the need for decision makers to feel confident that any interventions resulting in the interference of human rights are both justified and proportionate. Toulmin’s work has already been shown to have relevance for assisting social workers navigate pathways through cases involving competing ethical and moral demands (Osmo and Landau, 2001) and more recently to human rights and decision making in child protection (Duffy et al, 2006). Toulmin’s model takes the practitioner through a series of stages where any argument or proposed recommendation (claim) is subjected to intense critical analysis involving exposition of its strengths and weaknesses. The author therefore proposes that explicit argumentation (Osmo and Landau, 2001) may help supervisors and practitioners towards safer and more confident decision making in child protection cases involving the interference of the human rights of children and parents. In addition to highlighting the broader context of human rights currently permeating child protection decision making, the paper will include case material to practically demonstrate the application of Toulmin’s model of argumentation to the supervision context. In this way the paper adopts a strong practice approach in helping to assist practitioners with the problems and dilemmas they may come up against in decision making in complex cases.

Reintegrative and Disintegrative Shaming:Legal and Ethical Issues

Abstract
This chapter considers a range of legal and ethical issues raised by the use of reintegrative and disintegrative shaming techniques (Braithwaite, 1989) with sex offenders. ‘Disintegrative shaming’ labels and stigmatises offenders, ostracises them from the local community and may result in violence directed towards offenders (McAlinden, 2005, 2007). ‘Reintegrative shaming’, on the other hand, focuses on rehabilitating the offender within a supportive community environment and assisting the offender in their efforts to change. The former is evident in the range of recent legislative responses designed to protect the community from sex offenders such as notification as well as the popular demand for measures which ‘name and shame’ known sex offenders. The latter is more clearly related to restorative measures such as circles of support and accountability. This chapter argues that although traditionally at opposite ends of the intervention spectrum, each type of mechanism gives rise to potentially difficult legal and ethical considerations.