Aibu to expect people to help themselves in their own lives?

[Lazymazy1]

Have wanted to be a social worker for many years, have a degree and was looking to do a MSc.
However, doing voluntary work with a family who are in a very chaotic position, who won't help themselves, ie getting pregnant again whilst effectively homeless. Not taking control of things which will make a big difference in their current situation.

It isn't a case of can't, but won't help themselves, perhaps ingrained.

Am I being unreasonable ? Or are there good reasons why people just won't help themselves?

Friend, in this case shared ownership and very occasionally rental (when I was on the board of the HA) but my former nanny rents and she was offered three items from a list when she took on her tenancy. So it does happen, but it depends on what funding is available and how fast they need to shift the homes (believe it or not sometimes things just sit on the balance sheet as a void when you would least expect it).

Ok, op, I work in social work, and a big part of my job is training new Social Workers on placement.

Initially there's nothing wrong with your initial question. You are aware of a judgement you are making and asking the right question- why do people behave this way. If I were your practice educator, I would tell you that you need to do a huge amount of reading to understand the answer. Look at theories of change to understand why some people can achieve it, and some don't. Look at theories of resilience to understand why some people don't seem to have the resources to cope. Look at anti discriminatory theory to understand the impact oppression has on the human mind. As a Social Worker you can't throw your hands up and say "Well they just don't want to change!" You have to work out why, so that you can help them to sort it. For some people, they are so damaged that you have to go right down to the roots.
As a Social Worker, you need to be able to reflect. On your own experiences, on your own reactions, put them under the microscope and work out where they come from. You need to be able to understand and defend the judgements you make from a professional position, not a personal one.

What I am seeing however on this thread is an attitude of you being convinced that you are right and not being prepared to actually move. You are defensive, not reflective. That is the most dangerous trait there is in a potential Social Worker, and if by the end of placement, you hadn't managed to address that, you would fail the placement.

I'm also concerned about the values you are defending here. There appears to be a cut of point for your sympathy. Children are to be protected, but adults just have to get on with it. Those adults were children once, and many had the most horrific time, which has left them damaged. At what age are we meant to stop caring about that? We can make a professional judgement that they are not capable of looking after a child, but to have no empathy for the adult is unacceptable. Also, to suggest that because you can't forgive something painful in your own personal life, a whole catagory of people should die? And their children should mourn them, their parents, their siblings should all suffer the ultimate loss. These values are incompatible with Social Work, and if you can't reflect on them, then it's the wrong career for you. You would burn out very quickly, and do a huge amount of damage on the way.

AltogetherAndrews excellent post. I too think it would be damaging for the op as well as clients. Because it's likely at one point she would have an experience that broke through her current mindset and that can be very frightening and damaging.

Shared ownership is NOT social housing so you can't really wheel that out here to beat people with. I have friends, (one a solicitor) who do not earn enough to be considered for shared ownership. She does not have a hand up from wealthy parents or aquintences so is stuck paying £1500pcm with no hope of that ever changing.

So, you say, 'very occasionally' a rental property would have some white goods items.
Your ex nanny then is one such person who received this rare provision.
I think as a lone parent of two babies she is a good candidate for such a provision.

Do you think it is better that they go to bright house?
Or have nothing?
Perhaps she should be spending £10 a day and 2 hours at the launderette?
or going to stone their garments at the river

Well said Andrews

. The burn out comes with this attitude because if you approach the Service User with the attitude that says "shape up, you ought to make better choices, " you will be completely ineffective and will never achieve a good outcome. It's magic wand thinking, the idea that you should be able to walk in, tell someone What they ought to do and that will fix everything. It never works in the long term, or even the short term. And if every family you work with fails to make positive change due to ineffective practice, it will grind you down fast. As will working all the time for people you don't actually like, and can't find respect for. The truth is that in many, although not all, Social Work fields, nearly everyone you are working with makes poor choices, repeatedly. If they were able to make good choices, they wouldn't need Social Work involvement in the first place.

Thank you for your input andrews

Boffin your earlier posts made it sound like it was common practice all over the country for HAs to give out free white goods and sofas and that is completely untrue.

Ive been on MN for over five years and seen other ridiculous claims about HA freebies The last claim i saw on here was that HA tenants get their TV licences paid for them!

Seriously - to the social workers on this thread, is this the norm? Do you actually work with people like this?

In all honesty yes I have.

However they tend to be the ones who are really better than nothing.one in perticular springs to mind, she had a very very low rate of sucess in care order cases, misrepresented most of her client contacts, had several judges raise concerns about her.

Fancied herself as a saviour of the poor kiddies and was proud of the fact that she would do what ever it took to protect them all and fuck the rules.

Before she ended up in the papers due to a covert recording of her being used in court she was quite possibly one of the biggest risk factors to the very children she thought she was protecting.

I didn't think covert recordings where admissible as evidence in court? I personally think they absolutely should be, but I was under the impression that they were not.

Off topic but can I just say how gobsmacked I am at the poster upset that her nanny "gave it all up" (because working for you was such a great deal?!) to have her own kids.

You ate literally complaining because she is at her house looking after her kids, instead of at your house looking after yours. That is disgusting entitlement on your part! And all your attempts to stigmatise her: ("Ooh HA housing, benefits, single mothers, shocking!") do nothing to disguise that.

You remind me of the MPS in the 1920s who had the front to hold a debate on "the servant problem" and use up public time and money to winge that they couldn't find parlour maids on the wages they were willing to provide!

You losing a servant is not a social problem and your attempt to shoe horn it into a discussion about social services is completely ridiculous

Slotted I think they aren't certainly criminal cases. In civil commercial damages cases they are as the primary aim is for justice to be done and facts to be out there. Criminal cases it's different. I don't know about social work but I don't see why if teachers and police can record people people cannot do it the other way round.

I would much rather we had more openness even if children's "privacy" rights are breached. So much is done supposedly to protect children in divorce cases when in fact it is just to ensure mr adulterer can keep secret that he played away and doesn't want his dirty linen aired in court. They always use this excuse that it is to protect the children when usually the children know everything that is going on anyway and would rather they had their say with publicity than no say.

I didn't think covert recordings where admissible as evidence in court? I personally think they absolutely should be, but I was under the impression that they were not

They are used with surprisingly high frequency in familŷ court (please forgive the weird familŷ my iPad has gone French and I don't know how to change it)
The rules say they shouldn't be used normally but a transcript of one can be used (that is very usual) in many circumstamces the recording will be listened to in chambers and can then be introduced by the judge into the actual hearing.

The case I'm meaning ended up in the media because of the nature of the recording and I'm quite pleased to say that several times covert recordings have assisted with dealing with SW who are less than honest about their own actions.

I'm a huge huge fan of openly recording professional contacts I think it should be standard and I think certain professions should be prohibited from refusing to cooperate with being recorded.

Anybody could be being covertly recorded any time and it is not an offence and we already have the laws available to us to deal with people who put staff safety at risk by distributing covert recordings.

Some people on here are incapable of holding two ideas in their heads at once.

On the one hand I am delighted that my ex-nanny has been properly housed and has everything she needs, much of which I supplied or arranged for her to have.

On the other hand I do not think it sets a good example to her children having a deliberately absent father, and giving up work. Statistically speaking her children will do less well in life than if she was in a more stable relationship where the parents were living together, and/or also if she kept her hand in at work so she could ramp up her hours later when they were in school and provide for a better lifestyle. Dress it up however you like, she's made a set of weaker choices here for them in the long term.

Also I find the 'servant' comment a bit odd. It's just childcare, folks, in this case for my disabled kid. It's not Downton Abbey, FFS. The majority of mothers now work and use childcare, and I don't think anyone who does childcare for a living would classify themselves as a 'servant'. Certainly special needs nannies don't. Bizarre notion.

BoffinMum You think that your nanny's children would be better off being looked after by someone else? Is this to teach her toddler and baby a work ethic?

"Also I find the 'servant' comment a bit odd"

It was a reference to your oddly Edwardian attitude

Where does mental health come into all this? I got excellent grades at my outstandung private school but due to some horrendous decisions i made due to dreadful mental health problems in my 20s, i made a huge number of shite decisions and now am a single poor mum on a low wage.

The rich also make appauling mistakes ( look at the personal life of the royals) but their fuck ups are glossed over with money.

I also suspect that my mental health issues were in part caused by being bullied at private school by rich kids. I was not rich... the rich dont let anyone into their circle and therein lies the problem .

We were refused use of any recordings in the Court of Protection. Which I found quite ridiculous. My mother cannot speak, the recordings would have spoken for her.
Tbh I found the whole process, a rubber stamp for the LA.

51

Did you have the recordings transcribed and use those?

No one is saying wealthy people can't or don't have problems.
Im saying that, if you are wealthy money gives you more options, more resilience.
For example, you could pay for respite care, more continence products, therapy etc etc

You wouldn't have the worry of being one paycheque away from homelessness like many families have, on top of whatever other stresses you have, which if you are poorer are likely to be more.

Boffin, what you posted is irrelevant, talking about your ex-nannys children growing up in a two parent family, or staying at work in order to her ramp up her hours for a 'better lifestyle' later.
For whatever reason/s, that hasn't happened.
He could have been abusive, she could have PND, we don't really know what is going on with her, but you are still judging her, suggesting what you think are better choices for her when you actually don't know. Plus, it's not up to you.
Just because 'your betters' tell you what you should be doing or judge you for it, doesn't mean you have to do it!
Imagine, us telling you that you shouldn't have used a nanny, you should have looked after your child.
And thinking it's our right to do so, because the state provided something.
No one is telling you how to raise your child or what hours you should work.
We have no right!
And you have no right!

Having children under any circumstances opens up the floodgates for all the Judgey Mcjudgepants to have their say about how you run your life; even more so if you are poor.

In fact the poor are judged whatever for 2not working hard enough.Horrendous snobbery imo.

I think OP it might be worth looking up the phrase ' unconditional positive regard ' .

I use the above phrase as a mental kick up the arse if I struggle when working with patients and feel any personal judgement rising to the surface . I am not trained in mental health and only very briefly studied the above concept . I think it is easy to approach people with unconditional positive regard if they and their behaviours fit in with percieved societal norms and I think most of us have a spectrum of behaviours that we accept as normal/acceptable.
I believe that you can learn to check yourself mentally , to remember that to be able to deal effectively with people and assist them , you need to come at them with unconditional positive regard as the starting point .
I hope that makes some sort of sense