DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND GENERAL STUDIES

SOCIAL CARE

DATE RECEIVED: 30.10.12

SUBMISSION DATE: 30.10.12

NAME OF STUDENT: Stephen Evans

LECTURER’S NAME: Aine DeRoiste

SUBJECT: Family and Relationship Psychology

YEAR (CLASS): Social Care Year 3

TITLE OF PROJECT: Family and Relationship Psychology Case

Study Assignment 1

COMMENTS

1

MARK__________

Stephen Evans

Family and Relationship PsychologyCase Study Assignment 1

What are the lessons learnt fromthe various inquiry reports

2

Aine DeRoiste

PSYC7001

29.10.12

3

Contents Page

Pages Contents

1 Assignment cover sheet

2 Title Page

3 Contents Page

4 Introduction

4-12 Section 1

12-13 Section 2

14-17 Section 3

17-22 Section 4

23-25 Reference List

26-33 Appendices 1: Preventing violence in

relationships: Psychological science

addressing complex issues.

4

5

Introduction

The following assignment is going to critically discuss what

are the lessons learnt from various inquiry reports, the

assignment is separated in to four sections:

1. The psychology of family functioning and family

dysfunction.

2. Power in the family.

3. Warning signs and family strengths evident in some of the

cases.

4. Working with families at risk from abuse.

Section 1

1. What are the lessons learnt about the psychology of family

functioning and family dysfunction?

The first lesson learnt is, the way parent’s parent and their

capacity to parent have major impact on the individuals in the

family and affect the family as whole.

Family unit can be considered as a system which is made up of

a number of smaller systems called sub systems. These sub-

systems are the different relationships between the family

members, and are interlinked this is how each family member

influences all the other members within the family, this how

the family can be conceptualised as a system. Robinson (1991)

states, “A family is a whole made up of interdependent elements, which, through

their communication and behaviour, will influence and be influenced by one

another” (Robinson, 1991:29 cited in O’connor & Murphy, 2006: Pg3). The

parenting style adopted by the parent will have a bearing on

6

all of the other individuals and sub-system within the family.

A parent needs to have; consistency and sensitivity, and be

responsive and accepting with their children, to establish

positive sub-systems with them.

According to Horwath (2001) parenting capacity is dependent on

six dimensions:

Basic care: physical needs met, shelter, clothing,

hygiene, dental and medical care.

Ensuring safety: protection from harm and danger.

Emotional warmth: emotional needs met, positive sense of

identity, emotional sensitivity and responsiveness,

encouragement, praise, comfort, affection, physical

contact.

Stimulation: promotion of learning and cognitive

development, communication, play, facilitation to

achieve, school attendance.

Guidance and boundaries: enabling the child to regulate

his/her own emotions and behaviour, demonstrating and

modelling behaviour, control of emotions and relating to

others. Helping the child to internalise moral norms,

develop a conscience and social behaviour appropriate to

society. Helping a child to develop problem skills,

anger management and to judge what to do in various

situations. Self-discipline.

Stability: continuity and consistency of relationships;

capacity to ensure secure attachments are not disrupted.

Support for the above dimensions of parenting comes from

studies which have explored the link between aspects of

7

parenting behaviour and child outcomes (Leober and

Strouthamer-Loeber 1987; Rutter 1989; Wasserman et al. 1996;

cited in Horwath, J. (2001): Pg259). These dimensions can be

comprehended as basic needs of a child, if these needs are not

able to be met, the adult’s ability to parent is impeded

significantly. Summing up parenting capacity using the six

dimension, it can be said, for a parent to have the capacity

to parent they need to be able to provide; Basic care, Safe

environment, Stimulation, Emotional warmth, Guidance and

stability and be able to set clear boundaries for their

children.

In the Kilkenny case, the way Mary’s father acted towards Mary

(father and child sub-system), would have had an impact on the

whole family, a system effect. Also in the Kilkenny case a

number of the six dimensions that are dependent on the

capacity to parent were either none existent or consistently

lacking. Mary describes her father as being prone to

unpredictable outbursts and mood swings. She was also subject

to verbal abuse by her father who called her a "whore". By

looking at this example from the Kilkenny case it can be seen

that, a number of the dimension needed to parent were non-

existent; Ensuring safety, Emotional warmth, Guidance and

boundaries were the dimensions that were clearly not met. The

father is obviously harming Mary by the physical and verbal

outbursts, no emotional warmth or guidance and did not ensure

Mary’s safety, boundaries would have been shifting from day to

day depending on the father’s mood. In the Kilkenny case,

8

Kelly Fitzgerald case (1996) and Roscommon case (2010), all

parenting capacity dimensions were either completely non-

existence or lacking immensely at different time periods of

the inquires.

The lesson learnt about parenting and capacity to parent, is

that the family unit reacts like a system, if one part of the

system is effected all the independent parts will be effected

too. Social care workers and social workers need to look at

the possible impacts on the family as system when developing

interventions for a family. Also when assessing families how

best to help and support them, there is a need to look at, if

the parents have the capacity to parent and if they do not,

what support can be used to improve their capacity to parent.

The second lesson learnt from the various reports is that, the

way a family as a unit functions, depends on how the family

interacts and fits in with its ecological systems and this

will impact upon the individuals and the family as whole.

According to Bronfenbrenner, “the social context of individual interactions

and experiences determines the degree to which individuals can develop their

abilities and realise their potentials” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1989, 1995,

2005; Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006. Cited in Berns, R. 9th

Edition: Pg17), thus affecting the family as whole.

9

Source; Wikispaces.com

The diagram above outlines Brofenbrenner’s Ecological Four

Systems Theory and gives examples of what fits into each.

These systems are:

• Microsystem - the immediate surroundings and things which

affect the child, such as the family or classroom.

• Mesosytem - which is two microsystems in interaction,

extended family, etc.

• Exosystem - an outside environment which indirectly

affects the child, such as a siblings, classroom, etc.

• Macrosystem - the community, culture, policies, laws,

etc.

Duis et al, articulates accurately how Brodenbrenner’s

ecological system theory impacts on the family unit.

10

“All families experience stress from time to time, but the types of stress and the

resources available to aid in coping vary among families. According to Holroyd

and Lazarus (1982), psychological stress occurs when "environmental and/or

internal demands tax or exceed the individual's resources for managing them" (p.

2 2 ) . The negative effects of such stress can be buffered by social support,

including "informational, instructional, psychological, material, and physical

resources provided by members of a person's personal social networks" (Dunst,

Trivette, Hamby, &C Pollock, 1 9 9 0 , p. 2 0 5 ) . Because social support increases

parent well-being, promotes better family functioning, and improves interactions

between family members, it can have a positive effect on child behaviour and

development (Dunst et al., 1990)” (cited in, Duis, S. Summers, M &

Summers, C. 1997: Pg1).

The different family systems impacted on all individuals

identified in all the reports presented for this assignment,

by affecting the individual, this causes a systematic

influence on the family unit, examples of these are:

In the Farmer Case 1998 (Sophie’s Story, 1998), the Micro

system having an impact on the individual and family is

present in the G narrative, “On their return, he said he was beaten

consistently and severely by his father who used his fist”(NWHB, 1998: Pg10).

An example of the Meso-system affecting the family in the

Kelly Fitzgerald report (1996), “Her father did not enjoy a happy

relationship with his mother-in-law and the marriage was strained during this

period, with Kelly's father moving out of the home” (WHB, 1996: Pg1).

The Macro-system is presented in the Kilkenny case (1993), “The

relevant legal and health authorities were notified” (SEHB, 1993: Pg12).

11

These examples illustrate how family systems impact upon the

individuals and the family as a whole. Knowledge of the

different family systems will help social care workers to

understand how the wider environment impacts upon the family

and the family members, and how best to use resources from

these systems to best effect.

The third lesson learnt is that, sub-systems and boundaries

within the family can have a bilateral affect.

i. The sub-systems and boundaries can influence the

functioning and dysfunction of the family.

ii. Equally the family functioning and dysfunction can

affect the sub-systems and boundaries within the

family.

Subsystems within the family are:

Marital Sub-system

Parent-child Sub-system

Sibling Sub-system

When these subsystems or relationships are formed they can be

either positive or negative, or on occasion there can be a

sub-system that is positive for one individual and negative

for the other. Relationships (sub-systems) experienced by

family members can be very different; Close, Disengaged,

Conflict, or Alliances are just some types of the

relationships.

Serowa states, “Boundaries in a family are invisible, but they delineate

individuals and subsystem and define the amount and kind of contact allowable

between members of the family. The identity, functions, and patterns of relationships

12

within a subsystem are governed by relationships between the subsystems”

(Socyberty.com, 2010).

In the Kilkenny case the sub-system formed between Mary and

her father, approaching the birth of her son and seven days

after, caused Mary to take on a role that resembled a marital

partner. Her mother further reinforced this role; first by

not putting a stop to the sexual abuse by informing the

authorities, etc. Secondly by accompanying her daughter to

the G.P. to get a prescription for the pill after her father

insisted she went on birth control. This blatantly shows the

mother was an enabler to the relationship between Mary and her

father and allowed the dysfunctional relationship to occur.

In the above Kilkenny case example, although the sub-system of

Mary and her father was affecting the way her mother was

behaving, the mothers behaviour was in turn affecting this

sub-system as well. By understanding the characteristics of,

dysfunctional and functional family sub-systems, will help

social care workers to identify these earlier in the future

enabling them to take necessary action or further

investigation where required.

The fourth lesson learnt is the balance (Homeostasis) of the

family can be both, in the interest of all members and to the

detriment of one or more members.

Marvin Fine conveys homeostasis of the family well when he

states;

“As behaviour patterns evolve within a family with persons assuming roles,

relationships and activities, the family members can achieve a balance among

13

themselves. The balance does not necessarily mean that everyone with the

family is happy or that the family is helping each member to grow in healthy

ways. Rather it means that a pattern is set to which family members are

conforming” (Fine, 1979: Pg152)

When considering the balance (homeostasis) of the family in

the various reports studied for this assignment, it is

apparent that although in many cases the families are

considered dysfunctional, it remains that the families at

times were functional in the sense that family members

conformed to the dysfunction of the family operation. So

families can be dysfunctionally functional within society.

In the Monageer case (2009) the end objective of the father,

Adrian Dunne (to kill the family and then commit suicide) is

considered dysfunctional, because the mother conformed to this

the objective was achieved.

In the Roscommon case (2010), the family was able to function

for the best part of 15 years, 1989-2004 even though the

parents engaged in a wide range of dysfunctional behaviours

and roles. But because family members assumed roles,

behaviours, relationships and activities that achieved a

balance within the family, functionality was achieved for the

majority of this time. To understand that a family can be

dysfunctionally functional and seem on the outside to operate

normally within society, can be mask for what is going on

behind closed doors, like in the Roscommon case (2010). This

knowledge will help social workers to look past the mask and

look at what is really going on, not to take things at face

value.

14

The fifth lesson learnt is parental behaviour can be an influencing factor on other family members behaviours and roles.

Larimore, W. et al (2004: Pg 175) supports the suggestion

that, every family at times go through periods of stress and

dysfunction, these can be caused by a number of things; death

or illness of a loved one, member of the family (parent

normally) away for long periods of time, etc. The causes of

the dysfunction in a healthy family are things that are out of

the ordinary, something that is not expected and are uncommon.

In the healthy family these dysfunctional causes remain just

that; uncommon, unexpected and out of the ordinary, not

becoming ingrained into daily and weekly life for the family,

doesn’t become the norm.

This is in line with Boyd’s (1992) understanding: Unhealthy

family are families where the causes of dysfunction and stress

are common, expected and are the norm. These can come from

repeated dysfunctional behaviours of parents becoming

ingrained in daily and weekly living for the family. When

these behaviours do become a regular occurrence by a parent,

other family members behaviour’s adapt to cover up; survival

behaviours. Survival behaviours are created by other family

members to enable the family to go on functioning. These

survival techniques used, are actually reinforcing the

dysfunctional behaviour, because the dysfunctional family

member are never allowed to experience the negative

consequences of their own behaviours.

15

Throughout the Roscommon case (2010) report, there is

documented evidence of excessive alcohol consumption from both

parents on numerous occasions, any reasonable person would

confer a dependency on alcohol from the report. In the

findings of the Rosommon report 4.9 it states, “It was manifested

by the children often being left alone when the parents were in the pub and by the

older children having to fulfil adult roles such as minding and feeding younger

siblings”.

This example shows just one of the many dysfunctional

behaviours by the parents, and also identifies the survival

behaviours adapted by the older children in the family.

Although the older children adapted these behaviours, it was

probably out of necessity to help the younger children survive

more than to cover up the behaviour of the parents. These

above example shows how the parental dysfunctional behaviours

can affect the behaviours of other members of the family.

By being able to understand the family as system, that it is

greater than the sum of its parts and all the parts are

interlinked, can help social care workers in the future see

how one behaviour will have a system effect (knock on effect)

on all the parts system (the family members).

The sixth lesson learnt is that reciprocal and circular

causation is a mitigating factor in some individuals that

commit abuse.

When looking at sequences of actions or behaviours within the

family setting; each action can be considered in part the

consequence of the action preceding it and, a cause of the

16

action following it. Suzuki states, “Circular causality is the view that

a family member’s behaviour is both caused by and causes the other member’s

behaviour” (Suzuki et al, 2008: Pg263). These action or elements

only in part influence the sequence as a whole, because the

sequence or system is affected by a wide variety of elements,

e.g. other family member’s behaviours, roles adopted, family

rules, etc. One person’s actions or behaviours can affect all

elements in the system, the other family members. For example

a parent could abuse their child because the child acts out,

but the child could be acting out because of the abuse. This

then creates a loop effect and the behaviours and roles by

these individuals become established, ingrained and normal

within the family unit.

Although in the inquiry reports presented for this assignment,

I could not establish if any of the perpetrators of the abuse

had suffered abuse by their parents. It is a common theme

when reading relevant texts to; explain, develop and support

points within the assignment, that reciprocal and circular

causation of abuse is a major influencing factor on some

individual’s that commit abuse. Larimore (2004) states,

“Despite their uniqueness, most dysfunctional families have at least one thing in

common: One or both parents grew up in a dysfunctional family. The negative

effects of growing up in a dysfunctional family often spill over from one generation

to the next. The survival skill that were helpful to the children as they grew up

usually go on to cause problems when those children marry and have children of

their own”(Larimore et al, 2004: 175). This view is support by

countless other Psychologists, research articles and academic

texts in this area.

17

By understanding that one of the possible common

characteristics of some individual’s that commit abuse, could

be in their past, this could be a focus of investigation where

there is concerns of abuse.

Section 2

2. What are the lessons learnt from the various report inquiries

about power in family life?

In all new families, parents or primary caregivers initially

possess all the power within the family unit, this is out of

babies needing parents or primary caregivers to survive. The

power structure and subservient roles are driven by the power

of the primary caregivers. Individuals obtain power from

several resources, the main area of where power comes from

within the family, is being able to control economic resources

available to the family. This point is supported by Thomas et

al, (1999): “Household members derive power from multiple

sources, many of which reflect the options a person would have

outside the household. Prominent among these sources is

control over economic resources” (Thomas et al, 1999: Pg3).

Wolfe states that, “Research studies confirmed that children

from abusive homes suffer from numerous developmental

impairments and psychological problems, which may affect them

throughout adolescence and into adulthood” (Wolfe, 2006:

Pg45). “But recovery from trauma-related experiences was

related to positive changes in family circumstances, perceived

support from family and community members, and of course, the

cessation of abuse and fear” (ibid, 2006: Pg46).18

Adults can use a number of other forms of power within the

family unit that are outside of the control of economic

resources. Power assertion, is either physical punishment or

a show of force by the restriction or removal certain items

within the house. A common way abusers obtain power would be

through withdrawal of love (withholding affection), (adapted

from Coon. 2010). In contrast some forms of discipline can be

effective in healthy families used in the right way (Coon, D.

& Mitterar, J. 2010: Pg112). As long as dicipline is used as

a consequence of an action and not to get a reaction or to

manipulate behaviour then this wouldn’t amount to emotional

blackmail.

Emotional blackmail: is when people use fear, obligation and

guilt to manipulate behaviour (Forward, S. 2011. Cited in Out-

of-the-fog, n.d.). Dupuis (2010) states, “The idea driving

emotional blackmail is: I want you to do something that you

are not really interested in doing. So if subtly or in your

face imply that I won’t love you anymore if you don’t do as I

want, I am emotionally blackmailing you” (Dupuis, M. 2010: Mod

3). When an individual does something they don’t want to do

because of fear, obligation or guilt or all three then they

have done something because of emotional blackmail.

An example of power in family life in the Kelly Fitzgerald

report (1996) is, where Kelly was living with her grandparents

and her parents isolated and excluded her from their family,

not allowing Kelly to meet her siblings or to attend family

occasions, such as birthdays. This power came from Kelly’s

19

parents controlling Kelly’s interaction with them and her

siblings.

An example of power in the family in the Kilkenny case (1993)

was, when Mary’s father was physically and sexually abusing

Mary in 1976 when she was eleven. He used physical power when

he physically abused her and if Mary struggled, so she would

just lie there to get it over with and avoid even worse

physical abuse.

When considering the various inquiry reports the re-occurring

prevalent theme, of the families or the individual’s was

isolation. The isolation of the individual or the family

seemed to be achieved in a number of the cases, by the

individual committing the abuse. This is clearly apparent in

the Monageer case (2009), when the O’Brien family were not

invited to the wedding and the matron of honour and best man

were Adrian’s parents. Also this is further established with

the isolation of Ciara Dunne from her family.

The lessons learnt from the various inquiry reports, are that

sometimes individual’s manipulate interaction’s with people

from outside the family unit, in order to create isolation for

one or more of the family members. Social care workers can

use this characteristic of isolation of families and family

members to help identify if there is a need for further

investigation and the focus of the examinations needed.

Section 3

20

What are the lessons learnt from the various inquiry reports

about, warning signs (risk indicators) and family strengths

evident in some of the cases?

This assignment has identified a number of risk indicators

from the various inquiry reports considered, these will be

approached in order of personal considered importance.

Isolation was established as a risk indicators for the

individual’s and the families throughout the four (Rosscommon

case, Kilkenny case, Monageer case & Kelly Fitzgerald case)

inquiry reports reviewed for the assignment. When looking

objectively at the facts of each of the cases, it can be

concluded that; the individual who committed the abuse and the

most dominant individual in the family unit, was also the

individual that manipulated the family situation into creating

isolation for the family or the individual giving safe

opportunity to abuse.

For example, in the Roscommon case (2010), the father insured

that social worked 2 didn’t complete their work with one of

the children when there was a potential of disclosure of

abuse. Also the father in this case continuously manipulated

situation to ensure likelihood of exposure was minimal.

Examples of manipulation to create isolation by the dominant

abuser are evident throughout the whole of the history

description in all of the four cases.

The lesson learnt from identifying isolation as a warning sign

is, the important need to recognise if isolation is present

21

for families and family members. Once there is concern of

isolation by social care workers or social workers to

encourage integration with their environment and society, e.g.

extended families, local club and societies and access social

activities, would be one way for service and individual

working with families at risk could reducing isolation.

A major warning sign identified from the inquiry reports were,

parenting and the capacity to parent. The parenting style

adopted by the parent will be a major indicator to how their

relationships (sub-systems) with their children will develop

and will affect the family as whole. When considering an

individual’s parenting capacity, there is a need to look at

the six dimensions identified in part 1 of this assignment

(Horwath, 2001). If the individual does not have the

capability of meeting the needs of the child, physically,

emotionally and mentally this would indicate a major warning

sign for the welfare of the child and the ability of the

family to functional appropriately in society. To meet the

child’s needs; Physically would be to provide; basic care;

Emotionally there would be a need to; ensure safety, provide

emotional warmth, guidance and boundaries; and Mentally would

be to stimulate and give stability to the child. To see

further information on dimensions of parenting capacity, see

assignment part 1 Pg1

Family units are influenced by environmental dynamics that

affect their ability to do their job of nurturing individuals.

Children need an environment in which they can grow and

flourish, where mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual22

needs are met. As social people, family members require a

place of belonging in a family or family like household

(Claydon, 2005:Pg440).

The lessons learnt from the warning sign parenting and

parenting capacity is; 1.) When there is a concern with the

way an individual parents, to support and promote more

positive parenting styles for the benefit of everyone in the

subsystems. 2.) To identify which of the six parenting

capacity dimensions need support and how best to improve them

in the best interest of the family as a unit, whilst also

considering the system effect on the family.

Dysfunctional sub-systems within the family unit, is another

risk indicator corroborated from the various inquiry reports.

The four inquiries studied, identify dysfunctional

relationships (sub-systems) within the families. Satir

states, “Families are systems and as such seek balance; when

that balance is maintained through inappropriate roles,

restrictive rules, and/or unrealistic expectations, the

members’ needs will not be met, and dysfunction will occur”

(Satir, V. n.d. cited in Sage publication). A dysfunctional

relationship is where one person in the relationship is not

getting their needs met, the benefit of the relationship is to

only one person.

The lesson learnt about this risk indicator (dysfunctional

sub-systems) is, that sometimes the relationships within the

family unit are not always to the benefit of all members

within the family unit. Social workers and care workers need

23

to be able to identify dysfunctional relationships and support

the family to create positive functional relationships for

both people in the sub-system and for the benefit of the

family

This type of dysfunctional sub-system was apparent in the

Kelly Fitzgerald case (1996), between Kelly and her parents.

This sub-system was not beneficial or positive for Kelly, a

lot of Kelly’s needs were not being met and Kelly’s parents

were using Kelly’s behaviour as a way of deflecting attention

away from their inadequacies as parents and on to Kelly’s

behaviour.

Further warning signs identified from the various reports

were; Role confusion, Disguised compliance and Circular

causation. Reciprocal causation was not identified within the

various reports reviewed for the assignment, due to lack of

reference to abuse of any of the parents by their parents.

But through further reading in this area this was identified

as a major reoccurring theme with the area of psychology of

family functioning and dysfunctioning. Due to the constraints

of the assignment word count these warning signs will not be

explored in this assignment.

Strengths that where evident from the various reports examined

for the assignment where:

1.) The first strength explored is in the Roscommon case

(2010) is, a number of interspersed reports, of improvement

and progress made, but these were few and far between. Each

time there was a report of improvement there was a general

24

trend throughout the report for deterioration from these

sporadic improvements. For example, at 3.4.16 of the

Roscommon report, Sixth Case Conference, 18th February 2002,

there was a report prepared by locum PHN 2 for the Case

Conference that stated, “Mr and Mrs A are co-operating fully

with the department. They have made great efforts to ensure an

adequate level of hygiene and safety in and around the home.

There has been steady progress with this family and they

continue to work well with the professionals involved. There

is a definite commitment to making improvements and providing

a secure and loving home for the children. There are no

concerns presently identified that would compromise the

welfare of the children (Roscommon case (2010), 2010: Pg54)”.

There were a number of similar reports throughout the

Roscommon case (2010), of similar improvements. These

improvement show there was a capacity to provide a positive

environment for the children, but these improvement need to be

the norm within the household, not just on rare occasions.

The strength here is, the mother and father in the Roscommon

case (2010), has the potential to provide a safe clean

environment, in and around the home and the ability to make

steady progress and work positively with the support provided.

Also to provide a secure loving home for her children.

The lesson learnt here is there is a need to understand; Why,

how and what worked and enabled this improvement, and how to

maintain the improvement to create this type of environment

consistently.

25

2. The second strength explored in the assignment is in the

Monageer case (2009), Adrian Dunne had access to a good

standard of medical care for a number of conditions including

the on-going problems with his eyes and sight, whist growing

up. And at the age of thirteen in 1991 was able to access

special education specific to his needs in Wexford town, where

he sat his junior examinations in two subjects. The strength

here is, the access Adrian Dunne had to appropriate education

and medical care whilst growing up.

Section 4 

What are the lessons learnt from the various inquiry reports about working with families at risk for abuse.

The main reports focused on for this part of the assignment

were: Roscommon cases (2010), Kilkenny case (1993), Monageer

case (2009), also a number of other sources where used and are

identified throughout part four.

The issue of isolation was a very prominent and reoccurring

theme in three of the reports studied, Roscommon report

(2010), Monageer report (2009) and Killkenny report (1993).

This isolation was created in the three reports by one member

of the family, this person being both the offender of the

abuse and the dominating person within the family. The

Kilkenny (1993) report states, “Abusers within the family

present sometimes as loners, but can often be bullies who use

violence and threats to induce their wives and daughters to

gratify their desires (ICCL 1988. Cited in Kilkenny Report,

26

1993: Pg6) It is also known that these violent and/or drunken

abusers progress quickly to sexual intercourse” (Kilkenny

Report, 1993: Pg6).

In the three reports, the dominating person in the family

units was also controlling of the situation, by influencing

events to cover up the abuse to one or more of the family

members. This was done in variety of methods, from cancelling

appointments, coaching family members in explanations of

injuries, changing people working professionally with the

family members, e.g. G.P., plus a variety of other techniques

were used. Kilkenny Report (1993) states, “At her father's

insistence, she attended different general practitioners for

the treatment of these injuries. "Daddy didn't want them

putting two and two together. If I went to the same doctor all

the time, the doctor would realise the injuries could not be

all from one source"” (Kilkenny Report, 1993: Pg10).

A prominent theme of working with families at risk from abuse

is the isolation of the family as whole. Although this was

more prevalent in the Kilkenny (1993) and Monageer (2009)

cases, isolation was still present for the children in the

Rosommon case (2010) just in a different appearance. All the

way through the Rosommon case (2010) the children were

voiceless, no one talked to the children about the situation

until they got taken into care. So not being able to have a

voice about a situation that is out of their control, would

have made them feel very isolated. “A particular deficit in

the numerous case records is any form of detailed description

or account of the children. Prior to their admission to care,27

the voice of the child is virtually silent” (Roscommon

Inquiry, 2010: Pg69). The opinion that the children felt

isolated and unable to voice their opinion about their home

life, is supported by the Roscommon report (2010), after the

first child got taken into care in July 2004 they expressed

concerns in August 2004, for the other siblings and their

living arrangement, (Roscommon Report 2010: Pg62). In two

short months away from the parents the child was already able

voice these concerns. This report further supports this

opinion by establishing that, following some of the other

children being taken into care in August 2004 one of these

children made the allegation of physical and sexual abuse in

September 2004, again relatively short period of time. The

two previous points show a need and readiness to make

themselves heard, which should have been heard a long time

before.

The lesson learnt by studying a number of the reports outlined

above were, the family or more specifically the individual

that suffered the abuse was isolated or felt isolated.

Although in the Roscommon case (2010), the children weren’t

isolated per se, but felt isolated in the way they had no

chance to voice what was going on behind closed doors. In the

cases Kilkenny (1993) and Monageer (2009), isolation of the

family was created through moving the family from place to

place, also by control of the families contact with people

from outside the family unit. Isolation gives the perpetrator

of the abuse opportunity with less likelihood of being found

out.

28

Inter-services working

The poor quality and quantity of communication between service

and staff was identified as a very significant shortfall for

the Western Health Board in the Roscommon report (2010).

Although there was great support through a wide number of

services appointed to support the family in the Roscommon case

(2010), it seemed impossible for a history to be built up,

resulting in caseworkers beginning from scratch and

implementing procedures and engaging service that had already

failed with the family. A famous saying by George Santayana

sum’s this up appropriately, “Those who are unaware of history

are destined to repeat it” (Anon). Because key workers

working with the family, never had a complete picture of the

history of what had been done with the family, what worked and

didn’t work and why. The same problems were encountered time

and time again.

The lessons learnt from the studied reports is, that if Inter-

service working functioned at an appropriate level, which when

dealing with families and individual’s lives should always be

in the best interest of the family or individual’s and of the

highest standard. By being able to create a comprehensive

history of families and individuals, case workers would then

have been able to use this history to create an efficient

productive plan for the future.

Responsibility

The Monageer (2009) and Roscommon (2010) reports showed a

dependency on referring, engaging and informing other people

29

about the situation, rather than taking the responsibility to

act. In the Roscommon case (2010), the report shows that

there were a lot of organisational changes within the Health

Board sector during period of investigation 1989-2004. The

Roscommon (2010) report identifies a requirement by the

organisation to have everyone reporting to someone before

action can be taken, rather than someone taking action in the

best interest of the children. Obviously these reporting

systems were put in place to safeguard against children being

unnecessarily removed from the home. However when there is no

responsibility taken or given, just a corporate dependency on

referral of issues identified, then a lack of appropriate

action may be the consequence. Although throughout the

Roscommon (2010) inquiry, a number of areas were identified as

critical by a number of people working with the family, there

is evidence to show that staff felt it sufficient to just

engage another service to deal with the identified areas and

an expectance for these issues to magically be resolved.

Lack of responsibility was a key factor in both the Monageer

(2009) and the Roscommon (2010) cases. If someone working

with family in the Roscommon case (2010), had been able to see

the habitual negligence towards the children through a history

file and taken action at earlier date, the appalling abuse the

children suffered at the hands of their parents would have be

reduced. Also in the Monageer case (2009), rather than the

Garda just contacting each other, to pass on their worries to

each other and had called round to the house, they may have

been able to change the outcome. The lesson learnt from the

30

various inquiry reports should be that sometimes it is

necessary for an individual to take action first and deal with

the fall out after.

I. Assessment

A complete lack of assessment was identified as a huge problem

in the Roscommon report (2010). Although throughout the

Roscommon case (2010), there were a number of meetings, case

conferences with plans formed to try to support the family,

there was no assessment of these plans in action to see if

improvement were being made and general progress in providing

improved living situation for the children was being achieved.

Some of these assemblies, be it case conferences or meetings

of services and people working with the family, seemed to be a

matter of corporate procedure, rather than a way of

establishing how services can in the best interest of the

family work together for the benefit of the children.

Consequently, as there was no shared history of what, when and

how services were working with the family, it would have been

impossible for people working with the family to make an

assessment and an informed decisions. To be able to see what

worked and didn’t work in the past, would have enabled a

better outcome for the family and more so the children in the

future.

The report highlights all the way through the Roscommon case

(2010), intermittent improvement with a general de-escalation

31

from these improvements to on-going appalling living

conditions for children to grow up in.

One of the lessons learnt is that there is a need for a

comprehensive assessment of service and individuals working

with the family of; why, who, how are people working with the

family and the outcomes.

Recommendations

The recommendation of this part of the assignment is one fold,

but would take a huge undertaking. To have one main database

that consists of all relevant history for a family and

individual’s. The database should be able to flag any

persistent issues that could highlight problems for the

individual or family. This database should contain medical

records including referrals, appointments made; attended and

cancelled, number of G.P’s used, specialist’s used. Also

contain a record of service appointed from the health board,

again including appointments made and kept. Records in

regards of services from the health board to help support an

individual or family, records kept should be: what, when, and

how; including if it had a positive impact, how it had a

positive impact and why it had a positive impact. These

records should be accessible on a needs basis and accessible

by password, records kept should be dependent on the

individual and what is relevant for that time period. The

main feature of this recommendation is that the records kept

outside of standard medical records for each individual and

family should be person centred, what records are in the best

32

interest of the individual and what is needed to help support

them. To have this information in one place with appropriate

access to it, will immensely improve the ability and

efficiency of services working with families and individuals.

A history will already be present there will be no need to

create history from scratch just the ability to add to it.

Because a shared history will already be present, the ability

to make informed decisions in the best interest of the

individual and the family, will be greatly improved.

Obviously in the future records needed, will change, from

records needed now and in the past, also types of records and

the way records are laid down will change, but this will be a

case of just updating the database and the template. It is

understood that this recommendation not only is a massive

undertaking and will need ethical consideration but by

considering the evidence just from three reports, the

positives far out way the negatives and if it saves just one

person from death, abuse or deplorable situation, it is worth

it.

 

33

Reference list

Berns, R. 9th Edition. Child, Family, School, Community

socialisation and support. Pub. Unda Schreber-Ganster.

Boyd, G. 1992. Mudrasharam Institute of spiritual studies:

When you grow up in a dysfunctional family. [Online]

Available at:

http://www.mudrashram.com/dysfunctionalfamily2.html [Accessed

21/10/12]

Brosnan, K., Luny, L., McHugh, J. (2009). Report of the

Manageer Inquiry. Dublin: The Stationary Office.

Claydon, D. 2005. A new vision, a new heart, a renewed call.

Pub. William Carey Library

Coon, D & Mitterer, J. 2010. Introduction to Psychology:

Gateway to mind and behaviour. CengageNow TM.

Duis, S. Summers, M & Summers, R. 1997. Parent Versus Child

Stress in Diverse Family Types: An Ecological Approach. Pro-

Ed, Inc. [Online] Available at:<

http://cehs.unl.edu/ECSE/960/Duis.pdf> [Accessed 14/10/12].

Dupuis, M. 2010: (Module 3, Emotional Blackmail). Kind: Kids

Independent Not Dependent. Pub: Strategic Book Group.

34

Fine, M. 1979. Parents vs Children: making the relationship

work. Pub: Prentice-Hall.

Health Service Executive West. (2010). Roscommon child care case-report of the inquiry team to the Health Service Executive. Dublin: HSE.

Horwath, J. 2001. Department of Health. The University of

Sheffield. The child’s world: Assessing children in need.

Pub. Jessica Kingsley.

Larimore, W. Sorenson, S & Sorenson, A. 2004. Gods design for

the highly healthy child. Pub. Navapress.

McKay, S. (1998). Sophia’s Story. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.

North Western Health Board, (1998). West of Ireland Farmer

Case. Report of the Review Panel. Manorhamilton: NWHB.

O’Connor, T. & Murphy, M. (2006). Social Care in Ireland:

Theory, Policy & Practice. CIT Press

Out of the fog. n.d. Emotional blackmail. [online] Availableat:

http://outofthefog.net/CommonBehaviors/EmotionalBlackmail.html

Accessed 22.10.12

35

Sage Publication, n.d. Communication and family theory.

[Online] Available at:

http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/35409_Chapter4.pdf Accessed

22.10.12

Socyberty.com, 2010. Serowa in Psychology: Types of boundaries

identified by structural family therapy. [Online] Available

at: http://socyberty.com/psychology/types-of-family-

boundaries-identified-by-structural-family-therapy/2/

[Accessed 15/10/12]

McGuiness, C. (1993). South Eastern Health Board: Kilkenny

Incest Investigation Report. Dublin: Government Publications

Office.

Suzuki, L. Ponterotto, G & Meller, P. 2008. Handbook of

Multicultural Assessment: Clinical, Psychological &

Educational Applications, 3rd Edi. Pub. John Wiley & Sons.

Thomas, D. Contreras, D & Frankenberg, E. 1999. Distributionof power within the household and child health. [Online]Available at:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/labor/FLS/

IFLS/papers/distpow.pdf Accessed 22.10.12.

Western Health Board, (1996). A child is dead-report of a

committee of inquiry into the death of Kelly Fitzgerald.

Dublin: The Stationery Office.

36

Wikispaces.com. Bronfenbrenners Ecological Systems Theory

Diagram. [Online] Available

at:<http://edfd127.wikispaces.com/Bronfenbrenners+Ecological+S

ystems+Theory> [Accessed 14.10.12].

Wolfe, D., (2006). Preventing Violence in Relationships:

Psychological Science Addressing. Canadian Psychology 47 no1

F. Pg 44-50. Available through: CIT Library Website, online

database ebsco.

37