From scrutiny to support: fundamental shift needed in social work with disabled children

Parents of disabled children feel judged and scrutinised by local authorities and research describes how they experience disbelief, blame and a focus on parental shortcomings.

As social workers, we know assessments are meant to get to the heart of what children and families need. But too often, for families with disabled children, this aspiration is not always realised.

In the absence of clear evidence of neglect or abuse, our work can be inadvertently driven by an overemphasis on safeguarding or resource-gatekeeping, which can fundamentally overshadow a supportive and rights-based approach.

I hope this reflection provides the strength and knowledge needed to withstand systemic pressures, allowing us to return to the core of our profession.

Trusting parental knowledge

One of the common pieces of advice you'll hear as a new parent is to ‘trust your gut’ or ‘trust your instincts.’ It's intuitive wisdom that guides parents through sleepless nights and countless decisions.

However, when a parent of a child with a disability needs support, they report feeling judged, criticised, or ignored by a system that should be there to empower and build them up. So at what point does that once-trusted gut feeling become questioned, and why?

When fear drives practice

The public and professional scrutiny that emerges when serious incidents occur heavily impacts social work practice. TV shows and media often sensationalise stories, painting social work in a bad light and creating a climate of fear. 

Furthermore, while Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews (formerly Serious Case Reviews) are important mechanisms for learning and change, practitioners are nonetheless acutely aware of the potential repercussions should they ‘get it wrong.’ 

This awareness can lead to hyper-vigilance about perceived risks, even when there's no evidence. So the valuable 'lessons learned' can unfortunately turn into the unspoken pressure to 'never miss anything'.

‘One size fits all’ approach

This pressure gears the entire system toward risk management. While the protection of children is our foremost duty, we must ask what happens to those children who are already well-protected by their families and simply require practical support?

For families with disabled children, this is often the case. They enter the ‘Child in Need’ arena because of complex health or disability-related needs, yet our systems fail to differentiate their needs from those of other families where there may be concerns of abuse or neglect.

So, when we use the same system processes and standards, we inadvertently apply a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, using an assessment framework that isn't designed for children with disabilities.

Eligibility and funding

Alternatively, the pendulum can swing the other way, and a family's resilience may be cited as evidence that they can cope, even when they say they can't. This can result in social workers subconsciously looking for the strengths within a family – which we should absolutely do – but perhaps disproportionately using this to evidence that a child's circumstances fall below the service threshold. 

The idiom "don't let the tail wag the dog" is fitting here. A similar error occurs when funding pressures are allowed to dictate a child's assessed needs. This allows the financial tail to wag the rights-based dog and can shift responsibility back onto the family, despite their struggles. 

It can turn a child's right to welfare into a relentless and exhausting fight.

A rights-based approach

To counter this, our social work assessments need to actively embrace a rights-based approach for children with disabilities. There are prominent models of disability that underpin our work. 

The social model of disability recognises that a person is disabled by the way society and services are organised, rather than the medical model which views a health condition or diagnosis as the sole source of limitations or needs. 

Under the social model, the focus becomes about identifying the barriers that prevent the child or young person from participating in society and enjoying the same access and freedoms as anyone else.

This is not just a matter of good or ethical practice; it is law. At an international level, this includes the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Closer to home, these rights are enshrined into domestic law via the Human Rights Act 1998 and further reinforced by protections mandated under the Equality Act 2010.

This legislation protects the rights of disabled children, ensuring they are not placed at a disadvantage compared to their non-disabled peers, and reminds us that we have a responsibility to recognise, challenge and address any barriers.

Enforceable duties

The legal framework surrounding disabled children is notoriously complex. While the Law Commission’s September 2025 recommendations aim to modernise and simplify this – proposing a discrete set of rights within the Children Act 1989 – we must currently rely on the law as it stands. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 defines disabled children as a ‘child in need’, acting as a mandatory gateway to assessment. 

However, while this creates a general duty to provide appropriate services, local authorities retain considerable discretion in how they interpret that requirement. This is where the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (CSDPA) becomes essential.

The CSDPA was landmark legislation designed to bridge the gap in disability equality. It established enforceable duties and a specific list of necessary provisions relating to practical home assistance, equipment, transport and recreational opportunities. 

So, while the Children Act 1989 provides a general power to assist, Section 2 of the CSDPA goes much further: once a local authority is satisfied that a service is necessary, they have a legal obligation to provide it.

What next?

Social work with disabled children and their families requires a fundamental shift: we need to move from a default setting of scrutiny to one of genuine partnership led by the child's actual needs. 

We need to ask ourselves: are we truly focusing on genuine support and equality, or simply highlighting perceived shortcomings or perceived resilience? Did this child come to social care for support or for protection? And what lens are we viewing their circumstances through?

Ultimately, we must ensure assessments are balanced, evidence-based and legally compliant so that we truly protect and empower every child’s welfare.

Maria Hargreaves is an independent social worker www.imarasocialwork.com