“I worked on a case where a mother was not an alcoholic, but walked on exorbitant folding guns and could become violent. We found that the older child, he had his own consent, that he would call his grandmother, if that happened,” Birchall says. One of the things that social workers need to manage is how much a parent can count on them to be honest with them, including things that are not going well and with things they have to deal with. It is more difficult for a social worker to feel that a child can be kept safe at home, if they do not feel that the parent is open with them (and does not know what is actually going on in the home or in the lives of parents/children), so often an agreement will explicitly say that one of the expectations is that parents will be open and honest, or it could list some things that social workers expect one of the parents to know (drug relapses, a violent ex who appears at the door, decreased mental health). Part of it is that they can offer more appropriate support or adapt the agreement if they understand what is happening on the ground and partly so that they can trust that things are safe at home. Agreements written in the context of domestic abuse were also questioned in Ayeeshia-Jayne Smith`s serious magazine. The author, Jenny Myers, said: “They can be effective if adults and s`s are at the heart of their development, feel they can meet realistic expectations, and they are aware of the consequences of their non-compliance.” When people like “Machiavelli” (an interesting and somewhat suggestive online monicist, to say the least… see below) believe that written chords are “smoke and mirror” and “not worth the paper on which they are written,” so why use them? In fact, the commentary of “Machiavelli” is really disturbing and shows a degree of incompetence that stands out as frightening… For how could “Machiavelli” know that the policeman was “clearly inexperienced” in child protection? Did the officer make some kind of badge or T-shirt that defended that fact? No no! The statement made is based solely on the opinion of “Machiavelli” and therefore does not constitute a fact. How does one of us know if “Machiavelli” is experienced or not in child protection? And then say, “I don`t think the threshold has been reached in any way.” Well, obviously, other workers involved in the DID case think the threshold has been reached.
So why do you prefer “Machiavelli” you thought it was acceptable to throw away your weight and lie to the police by providing a written agreement written “Smoke and Mirror” that you yourself confess that you do not believe, that it is “worth the paper on which it is written” to confirm the safety of a child whose safety has clearly NOT been confirmed by a written agreement to which you do not even believe that it is “worth the paper on which it is written” to confirm the safety of a child whose safety clearly NOT could be confirmed by a written agreement that you do not even believe is “worth the paper on which it is written” to confirm the safety of a child whose safety clearly could not be confirmed by a written agreement that you do not even believe they do not even trust? A TERRIBLE PRACTICE, TRULY APPALLING! And if the “exit clause” states that “mother and child are thriving now,” where is the evidence? No other information is provided, so the case described could be as easily fictitious as it is real. So why do you need a written agreement? I used it absolutely because it was culture, and I thought it was good and would keep the kids safe. When I think back, I wasn`t thinking SLOWLY enough, I only did the process and it gave me and other agencies the certainty that the parents were newly partitioning.