The Consequences of Case Drift in Child Welfare: Causes, Pitfalls, and Strategies for Prevention

Case drift in child welfare represents the gradual shift from the core objectives and interventions designed to improve a child's welfare and Safeguarding. Practitioners and systems unintentionally deviate from the original goals, progressively weakening the alignment between case activities and the child’s evolving needs. This drift ultimately reduces the efficacy of child welfare intervention and renders children prone to unmet needs, unmatched care, and emotional trauma. Child welfare case drift is a slow, almost invisible slip from the overarching purpose of protecting a child to systemic inefficiencies, disorientation and external pressures that distract from the needs of children. For children in care, this disorientation can also make them feel abandoned, exacerbate their vulnerability and amplify trauma by making them feel disenfranchised from the system that should be guarding them. Prolonged instability often leads to severe psychological repercussions, heightening the likelihood of attachment disorders, chronic anxiety, and depression (Bowlby, 1988; Gillingham, 2011).   

Children exposed to case drift, especially those in unstable placements, face heightened risks of developing attachment disorders, anxiety, and depression. Unrau, Seita, and Putney (2008) highlight that those children experiencing inconsistent caregiving feel abandoned and traumatized, disrupting their capacity to form secure attachments and stable self-identities. Such disruptions can adversely impact children's psychological health and capacity for trusting relationships later in life (Unrau et al., 2008). Likewise, Perry and Szalavitz (2006) point out that exposure to instability and uneven care leads to brain dysfunction, particularly in areas that mediate stress, attachment and resilience. Children who live in these environments experience compounded trauma that makes it harder for them to create healthy coping skills and become emotionally stable over the long term (Perry & Szalavitz, 2006).

Furthermore, case drift in child welfare can lead to fragmented and ineffective interventions. Gillingham (2011) describes how procedural focus within child welfare systems creates gaps in care and prevents a cohesive approach to child-centred goals. This disconnect often leaves children feeling as though they are "lost" within the system, amplifying feelings of marginalization and abandonment. Leve et al. (2012) echo this concern, noting that repeated disruptions in placement and lack of a stable environment can contribute to behavioural and emotional challenges. Their study found that such instability compounds a child's trauma, heightening the risk of psychological distress and impacting their capacity to develop resilience and self-identity (Leve et al., 2012).

Ultimately, the persistent lack of targeted, stable interventions not only deepens children’s anxiety and confusion but also undermines their long-term emotional resilience and ability to form healthy relationships as they grow (Perry, 2001). Case drift, therefore, poses a significant threat to the developmental and psychological health of children in care, underscoring the need for child welfare systems to maintain a structured, child-centred focus to safeguard their well-being.

Case drift encapsulates the systemic misalignment when child welfare work deviates from its primary objectives. It highlights the need for structured case planning and a consistent focus on the child's well-being to prevent prolonged harm and promote lasting life stability. The challenges outlined in the context of case drift in child welfare are deeply rooted in organizational structures and systemic conditions, often creating an environment where hierarchical, fear-based, and process-oriented systems constrain practitioners. It is crucial to emphasize that these conditions are not the fault of individual practitioners, nor do they reflect a lack of commitment or competence on their part. Instead, child welfare systems are predominantly rigid and prioritize adherence to procedural requirements over the flexibility and responsiveness needed for child-centred outcomes (Munro, 2011). As a result, practitioners follow prescribed processes, often for their peace of mind and to meet institutional expectations, rather than exercising professional judgment aimed solely at meeting each child's unique needs.

A prominent issue within child welfare systems that creates an environment prone to case drift is the system’s adherence to traditional hierarchical models, enforcing strict chains of command and discouraging adaptive decision-making. Rigidity in child welfare often translates into a fear-driven workplace, where the primary concern becomes mitigating liability and avoiding blame (Edmondson, 2018). In such environments, practitioners may feel pressured to prioritize bureaucratic tasks, like documentation and compliance checklists, over the direct engagement needed to understand and respond to children’s evolving needs. According to Wilkins and Whittaker (2018), this risk-averse approach can stifle innovation and responsiveness, leading practitioners to become entrenched in a cycle of procedural adherence rather than taking proactive steps that might better address child welfare goals.

Moreover, the process emphasizes a culture in which practitioners are expected to perform to defined standards and timelines at the expense of reflective practice. Excessive focus on process over result undermines the central focus of protecting children. By emphasizing compliance, as Munro (2011) points out in her paper on child welfare agencies, the system risks losing sight of the child, fostering what she calls "a compliance-driven culture." Practitioners in this culture feel more responsible for meeting bureaucratic needs than designing positive interventions for children and families. Such conformity also impacts the morale and health of practitioners. Working in a process favouring procedural compliance over subtle modification can be frustrating and disempowering. Senge (1990) describes it as an organizational "learning disability" where people become detached from their vision because their workplace does not encourage continual learning or flexibility. In turn, practitioners may see their role as more about completing obligations than achieving meaningful impact, and they may become disengaged and even burnt out. In the words of Forrester, Kershaw, Moss and Hughes (2008), working with children requires dialogue, collaboration and a common goal-orientated focus, sometimes thwarted by hierarchical hierarchies.

In the highly scrutinized discipline of child welfare, the risk of reprisal or blame may push practitioners into adhering to procedures. This frightened compliance can give rise to a "covering" culture, in which practitioners make meticulously documented notes on activities and choices to be protected from criticism. This focus on long-winded reporting over direct intervention undermines child-centred care because time and effort are spent in the service of procedural requirements rather than finding actionable solutions (Reder et al., 1993). This type of setting produces a "blame culture" and can inhibit practitioners from taking the necessary risks that could be long-term beneficial to children (Turnell & Murphy, 2017). There is no question that practitioners are consciously aware of these limits and may even feel conflicted about their place in the system. They have to make their way through this environment to maintain their mental health and work safety, with protocols that they agree may have flaws. As Edmondson (2018) highlights in "The Fearless Organization," psychological safety plays a key role. If workers feel safe to express concerns and propose solutions, they will be more likely to adopt new, child-centred practices. However, unless support is provided and the blame culture reversed, practitioners will continue to feel pressured out of any ability to make meaningful change.

Causes of Case Drift in Child Welfare Systems

Child welfare case drift typically has multiple organizational and structural causes, which all contribute to the variability and unevenness of interventions intended to protect children. Arguably, the leading cause of case drift in some child welfare systems is the absence of a standardized risk and safeguarding assessment framework. With an area as complicated and complex as child welfare, it is essential to utilize a consistent framework to keep professionals in step with safeguarding values and child-focused goals. Without such standardized models, caseworkers are primarily left to individual judgement and practice, which leads to case inconsistency and, ultimately, cause drift. A process-driven framework is necessary to maintain consistency in handling cases, leading to dependable practices that can strengthen the effectiveness of interventions. According to Munro (2011), a lack of standardized processes in child welfare often results in fragmented, reactionary approaches that fail to address the full scope of a child’s needs. Practitioners may need a structured framework guiding assessment, planning, and intervention to maintain a cohesive focus on long-term goals. This lack of procedural consistency allows case drift to occur as practitioners, without clear procedural guidance, prioritize tasks reactively rather than strategically, increasing the likelihood of deviating from primary safeguarding objectives.

By embedding standardized procedures within each phase of the case, frameworks promote alignment across practitioners, ensuring that all actions are consistently directed toward the child's Safeguarding and well-being. Standardized frameworks also offer clear guidelines for decision-making, reducing the variability that often arises when practitioners rely solely on subjective judgment or personal interpretations of best practices. As Senge (1990) posits, structured frameworks in any organization create a “shared vision” that unifies team members around common goals. Consistency is critical in child welfare, where the stakes are high, and consistency is essential for safeguarding vulnerable children. Another critical benefit of standardized frameworks is that they support accountability and transparency. Practitioners operating within an established process framework can track and evaluate progress more effectively, identifying deviations from the case objectives. This structured approach enables child welfare teams to address issues proactively, preventing minor deviations from escalating into significant case drift. Kotter (2012) emphasizes that consistency in the process is vital for managing dynamic and evolving cases in complex, change-driven environments, such as child welfare. A framework that standardizes procedural steps provides practitioners with a clear roadmap, ensuring that the core safeguarding principles remain intact even as case details shift.

Moreover, a standardized framework helps facilitate smoother transitions and continuity of care when cases are handed over between practitioners or departments. High staff turnover is a common issue in child welfare, and each transition introduces the potential for case drift if new practitioners are unfamiliar with previous practices or case objectives. Turnell and Murphy (2017) argue that standardized frameworks can minimize this risk by ensuring that all practitioners follow the same procedural steps, which reduces confusion and miscommunication during handovers. Forrester, Kershaw, Moss, and Hughes (2008) further support this logic, noting that when child welfare teams operate within structured, communicative frameworks, they are better positioned to maintain alignment across case transitions, preserving the child’s continuity of care and safeguarding focus.

Due to individual practitioners ' diverse perspectives, values, and approaches, child welfare interventions are more vulnerable to drift without a standard framework guiding case processes. Mainly because each practitioner may interpret and prioritize case needs differently, resulting in fragmented interventions that fail to maintain a unified focus on safeguarding. Munro (2011) cautions that the absence of structured guidance often leads to a compliance-focused culture, where procedural checklists replace critical thinking and adaptive decision-making. This focus on meeting procedural requirements without a consistent underlying framework can exacerbate case drift, as practitioners may fulfill individual tasks without considering how each contributes to the overall safeguarding objectives.

Another cause for case drift is the inclusion of clear, precise objectives and structured case trajectories and timelines. Child welfare cases require a well-defined plan that outlines specific goals and roles to ensure all stakeholders are aligned and focused on the child's best interests. Ambiguity in case direction often causes practitioners to rely on intuition rather than structured, evidence-based practices, increasing the likelihood of deviating from the primary safeguarding goals (Turnell & Murphy, 2017). According to Kotter’s (2012) 8-Step Model for organizational change, setting a clear vision and specific goals can prevent the aimlessness that leads to case drift by keeping all team members focused on shared objectives and the child’s well-being. 

In child welfare, case drift can also be attributed to risk-averse behaviours deeply embedded in child protection systems. Practitioners and agencies operate under intense public scrutiny, and the fear of making a wrong decision can lead to a cautious approach that hinders timely interventions and drifts the case away from its primary goals. This caution, while well-intentioned, can prevent caseworkers from taking proactive steps as they prioritize avoiding potential mistakes over responding to the child’s immediate needs. The impact of this risk aversion is twofold: It can stall progress in cases that require decisive action and may lead to overly conservative interventions that miss opportunities for meaningful change (Munro, 2011). The persistent fear of “getting it wrong” can make practitioners reluctant to close cases or allow children to return to their families, instead choosing to delay decisions to ensure every possible factor has been considered.

Fear of being held accountable for errors or mistakes is another factor driving this risk-averse behaviour, where practitioners feel pressured to prove that all bases have been covered, often to the detriment of the child’s Safeguarding and well-being. This behaviour, reinforced by a system where mistakes are apparent and frequently publicly criticized, promotes a culture where practitioners are more likely to focus on compliance and exhaustive documentation than on the child's real-time needs (Wilkins & Whittaker, 2018). Consequently, decisions may lean towards caution and conservatism, fostering an environment ripe for case drift. Risk-averse behaviours derail an organization’s efforts to safeguard against perceived external scrutiny, leading to stalled case progression and eventual drift from safeguarding goals.

Denial and an overemphasis on proving fault further contribute to case drift, especially in cases involving complex family dynamics or allegations of abuse. In these scenarios, practitioners may spend disproportionate time gathering evidence to identify and prove the perpetrator’s guilt. An excessive focus on establishing blame can overshadow the child’s long-term need for stability and emotional support. This process can consume valuable time and resources, leading the case to stagnate. Rather than moving forward with interventions prioritizing the child’s extended Safeguarding and well-being, practitioners may feel pressured to build a legally sound case, inadvertently delaying decisions that could benefit the child (Reder et al., 1993). Caregiver denial and resistance to moving forward create a stalling effect when practitioners become “stuck” in overcoming this denial, sometimes expending months or even years seeking evidence that could validate initial suspicions. This dynamic often shifts case focus from supporting the child to attempting to “prove” the family’s responsibility or guilt. This reluctance to move forward without complete certainty can detract from the case’s primary goal of safeguarding the child, resulting in extended periods of unresolved intervention and ultimately contributing to case drift (Munro, 2011).

The role of organizational culture is also significant in reinforcing these behaviours. Many child welfare agencies operate within cultures prioritizing compliance, documentation, and risk management over child-centred, solution-oriented approaches. This focus can create a climate where practitioners feel obligated to “play it safe” rather than take decisive actions that might benefit the child but carry some uncertainty. Munro (2011) argues that overly rigid and risk-averse cultures in child welfare organizations can obstruct innovative, adaptive casework practices, leaving practitioners entrenched in processes that unintentionally are designed to protect the agency from liability rather than meet the child’s needs.

Another significant contributor to case drift in child welfare is the reliance on subjective, morally based, and intuitive practices that practitioners often develop through experience. While intuition and expertise can provide valuable insights, they also introduce the risk of cognitive biases and subjective judgment, which may lead practitioners away from objective, evidence-based practices. Daniel Kahneman’s work on cognitive biases and dual-process theory illustrates how intuitive, or "System 1," thinking rapidly, emotionally driven, and often subconsciously can be both efficient and perilous (Kahneman, 2011). Intuitive practice, particularly when unexamined, is susceptible to biases that can lead to hasty conclusions or a narrowed focus, contributing to case drift by stalling progress or causing practitioners to get “stuck” on some aspects of the case. In child welfare, where decisions bear significant consequences, ungrounded intuitive judgments can result in naive, potentially dangerous approaches that deviate from safeguarding objectives.

Stephen Covey (1989) highlights the importance of clear principles over subjective, instinct-driven decision-making, arguing that consistent, principle-centred practices are essential for maintaining focus and achieving meaningful outcomes. In child welfare, practitioners' subjective interpretations of cases can introduce variability that complicates coordination and alignment, especially in multidisciplinary teams where each member may apply different personal moral standards or professional frameworks to assess risk and safety. This reliance on intuition over structured, collaborative practices can lead to consistent judgments and cohesive interventions that undermine the cohesion of the case strategy.

Without cohesive communication and alignment mechanisms, practitioners are more likely to fall back on personal beliefs and past experiences when interpreting case details, which can conflict with team-based goals and contribute to case drift. The inherent risks of relying on “expert” intuition, as Kahneman (2011) cautions, lie in overconfidence and susceptibility to anchoring biases, where initial impressions disproportionately influence subsequent judgments. In child welfare, these biases can be especially problematic, as practitioners may focus excessively on certain case aspects based on initial interpretations, inadvertently overlooking other critical areas of need.

Amy Edmondson (2018) emphasizes the value of psychological safety within teams, where open communication and shared decision-making allow team members to align on goals and strategies. Psychological safety enables practitioners to express differing views, discuss uncertainties, and jointly address complex case dynamics, reducing the tendency to rely on isolated, intuitive judgments. However, many child welfare environments lack this open dialogue, often due to hierarchical structures or fear-based cultures that stifle honest discussions. As a result, practitioners may default to individual decision-making without adequately considering the case's overarching goals or the perspectives of other team members, further increasing the risk of case drift.

A siloed approach, exacerbated by inconsistent communication channels, can lead to redundant or conflicting interventions that compromise the child's safety and well-being. Forrester, Kershaw, Moss, and Hughes (2008) found that practical child protection work relies on clear, ongoing communication, which enables practitioners to maintain a unified understanding of the case objectives. When communication is present and unrestricted, practitioners may interpret risk and safety differently, leading to disjointed practices that drift from the primary safeguarding goals.

Lastly, staff turnover and procedural deviations also exacerbate case drift in child welfare. A high turnover rate interrupts the continuity of care and leaves holes in knowledge about the case history since new staff may need to learn more about prior assessments and treatment. The fact that child welfare work involves the care of several months, even years, makes matters even worse. Therefore, new clinicians may replicate existing interventions or need to align with established goals, causing the case to be repeated and added time spent. Senge (1990) recommends a learning organization model that supports continuous training and development to minimize turnover effects. In a learning culture, employees are provided with procedural training and general safeguarding principles for practice. Allowing all staff to have a standard framework definition regardless of tenure and consistency in safeguarding practices minimizes the risk of case drift (Senge, 1990).

Effects of Case Drift on Caregivers, Children/Youth and Practitioners

Case drift erodes trust in child welfare where families experiencing varying interventions view these changes as disrespectful to them or their children and may, therefore, be disengaged. If family involvement is non-consistent or undervalued, families can view case management as disciplinary or dismissive rather than empathetic, lending credence to stereotypes of naive or aggressive child welfare services. Such mistrust damages the child’s safety and well-being because it also makes families reluctant to participate fully, thus hindering collaborative work that might have the best outcome for the child (Forrester et al., 2008). A steady, respectful approach aligned with family-centred practice will be vital to developing healthy relationships and trust with families and, in turn, better-safeguarding interventions.

Case drift also contributes to practitioner burnout and reduced morale, which can have severe implications for the quality and continuity of care provided. When cases drift due to unclear expectations, inconsistent objectives, and reactive crisis management, practitioners are often forced into a cycle of responding to immediate issues rather than engaging in proactive, planned interventions. This reactive approach creates a stressful work environment, as practitioners constantly adapt to shifting case priorities without a clear direction. Kotter (2012) argues that sustained change requires continuous alignment with goals and purpose to prevent staff from feeling overwhelmed by the constant need to redirect their focus. Without a consistent framework to guide case management, practitioners may experience burnout due to the ongoing uncertainty and lack of clear goals.

Solutions

The first step in dealing with case drift is establishing a set of fundamental paradigms in the organization’s culture that allow practitioners to be their best selves and not fall into the traps described in this article. For long-term change to happen, creating a robust, child-centred organizational culture will require mindsets aligned with distributed leadership, transparency, trust, psychological safety, ongoing learning, and collaboration. When embedded into the organization's DNA, these paradigms allow practitioners to remain oriented towards safeguarding and child-centred outcomes without being influenced by structural or procedural problems.

Distributed Leadership: Through distributed leadership, authority and decision-making are distributed across roles instead of being held in strict hierarchies that choke agility and responsiveness. Spillane (2005) argues that distributed leadership encourages staff ownership, allows practitioners to attend more rapidly to children's needs without waiting for top-down orders, and eliminates bottlenecks that lead to case drift by encouraging practitioners to take timely, evidence-based action strategies to meet the child’s safeguarding and well-being interests.

Openness and Trust: An open and trusting culture encourages honesty. Users can speak out, raise concerns, or comment on a case's progress without fear of retribution. Trust is the core ingredient of a culture where people from all levels freely and honestly discuss. When nurtured within the organization, trust builds commitment and decreases resistance to change, writes Covey (1989). Trust and openness also help child welfare agencies focus on safeguarding aims, reducing cases that drift due to communication gaps or unresolved concerns.

Psychological Safety: Psychological safety (Edmondson (2018)) is essential for practitioners to communicate their uncertainties, receive feedback, and work together without fear of judgment or retaliation. Where psychological safety is high, practitioners are likelier to be honest and open about difficulties and engage in reflective practice. Such transparency also helps avoid case drift by allowing clinicians to share high-stakes cases, constantly reorienting themselves toward child-centred solutions.

Continuous Learning: A culture of constant learning facilitates the development of skills and adaptive practices so practitioners are prepared for changing case scenarios. As Senge (1990) argues, learning organizations nurture continuous growth, which assists employees in sharpening their skills and adapting to new tasks. Continuous learning in child welfare can consist of training in evidence-based interventions, case assessment systems, and collective decision-making. With an emphasis on learning, organizations encourage practitioners to embrace best practices and avoid falling back into bureaucratic-focused, intuition-driven, and compliance-driven practices.

Collaboration and Team-Based Practice: Collaboration and team-based practice allow professionals to collaborate, combining their different insights and knowledge to remain on one target with the child’s needs. According to Forrester et al. (2008), a good collaboration requires unambiguous communication channels and agreement on case goals. In establishing collaboration as a paradigm, companies help practitioners stay aligned and avoid the siloed, decentralized decision-making that can lead to case drift.

Reflective Practice and Accountability: Reflective practice requires managers to regularly review their decisions and how they adhere to safeguarding principles. This contemplative style and accountability systems keep practitioners on the child’s side. Schön (1983) recommends reflective practice to exercise professional judgment and avoid divergence from ultimate ends. With structured reflection and accountability, organizations can ensure that practitioners continuously revisit and check on case objectives to avoid cases veering off course.

Instilling these paradigms in the organization’s culture is essential so that cases stay focused and child-focused objectives are anchored. Distributed leadership, trust, psychological safety, learning, collaboration and practice-based reflection can all help child welfare agencies foster an atmosphere that allows practitioners to work with the best interests of each child at the heart of sustainable, life-enhancing outcomes. Child welfare systems must implement processes that identify the path and quantifiable goals for every case to counter the challenges faced by case drift. Adequate organizational support is vital in reducing case drift and maximizing child welfare. It involves providing practitioners with the support, education, and tools to ensure each case remains at the centre of safeguarding and well-being objectives. Importantly,  leadership is critical in promoting a culture that values child-centred practice and continuous learning. As Senge (1990) posits in his work on learning organizations, creating an environment where practitioners are encouraged to reflect, adapt, and align their practices with core objectives fosters more effective case management.

Another critical component for preventing case drift in child welfare is the implementation of a clear, structured timeline that holds everyone accountable for each step within the case trajectory. A timeline that includes specific timeframes, tasks, necessary meetings, and targeted observations of adult behavioural safeguarding indicators can significantly enhance accountability and alignment among all stakeholders involved in the case.   Moreover, regular meetings to monitor case progress are necessary to evaluate whether objectives are being met and to make adjustments as needed. These meetings serve as a forum to review tasks, align team members on goals, and discuss observations related to adult behavioural indicators of Safeguarding. Forrester, Kershaw, Moss, and Hughes (2008) stress that clear communication and regular check-ins are vital to successful casework in child protection, as they allow for a collective approach to managing complex family dynamics and evolving risks.

Progress tracking against the timeline helps ensure an organized way to return to goals, discuss problems, and see areas for improvement so that cases are not subject to case drift. Practitioners are encouraged to pause, consider where the case is currently headed, how it matches safeguarding objectives, and make adjustments before the child is in crisis. Including safeguarding networks in every step of the process is another key to preventing case drift since it supports a system-wide approach to protecting children and youth that is not just a function of the caseworker. The support system that includes family members, caregivers, educators, and healthcare professionals meets the child’s needs in multiple ways while sustaining continuity when individual practitioners shift. By including various support staff members with clearly identified roles, organizations create a unified safeguarding framework that is less dependent on single practitioners and more adaptive to turnover and organizational change. The shared accountability model ensures that everyone is engaged with the child’s care and reduces case drift through focused and shared care (Turnell & Murphy, 2017).

Case reviews and feedback are necessary to follow up with initial case goals and to re-invent interventions as the child's needs change. Instructed case reviews allow clinicians to assess the success of interventions, revise objectives and adjust plans based on new findings. Edmondson (2018) points out that a key to successful team collaboration is good communication and feedback so that practitioners can share progress, discuss problems and work through ideas together. Quarterly case reviews allow continuous case performance monitoring and align with safeguarding goals. These reviews keep the case on track and encourage a transparent and responsive culture, as the practitioner is also encouraged to continually integrate feedback into their work to minimize drift by ensuring every case is goal-driven.

Training is critical for an agency in a profession as dynamic and multifaceted as child welfare, which must remain a stable model of care and eliminate practice variability. As change management concepts point out, it takes continued learning and adapting to implement new practices across an organization because the practitioners would be more willing to follow safeguarding frameworks if trained and empowered regularly (Kotter, 2012). The leaders in child welfare agencies provide spaces for learners to practice what they are learning, confront obstacles, and engage with each other. Such a culture of ongoing professional learning reinforces practitioners’ commitment to safeguarding models and an institutional consensus to work with children (Senge, 1990). In child welfare, practitioners' primary responsibility is to ensure the child's Safeguarding and well-being, which must remain the core focus of all decisions and interventions. Practitioners must act decisively when case drift occurs or threatens to occur, mainly when caregivers are unwilling or unable to demonstrate safeguarding behaviours or engage in a structured safeguarding process. This action may include initiating steps to protect the child’s immediate and long-term well-being, even if it means making difficult choices regarding family reunification.

Safeguarding Balanced

While practitioners often prioritize reunification and recognize the emotional benefits of maintaining family connections, safeguarding should not come at the cost of prolonged instability or unaddressed risks in the child’s life. Turnell and Murphy (2017) emphasize that the core of safeguarding practice is a child-centred approach, meaning that the child’s safety and stability should take precedence over any other factors, including family reunification. When caregivers fail to provide or cannot demonstrate a commitment to the child’s safety and emotional health, practitioners must consider alternatives that place the child’s best interests above reunification goals, understanding that drifting towards prolonged uncertainty can cause more harm.

It is challenging to strike the right balance between family and protection. Practitioners are very sympathetic to the child’s emotional health and desire to stay in the family. They know that family relationships can be critical to the child’s identity and mental health. However, those decisions must be based on the child’s health and safety; sometimes, putting a child back with their family might not go along with those interests. Munro (2011) points out that reunification should never be the first option since the absence of safeguarding stability can exacerbate a child’s trauma and cause chronic emotional harm. Practitioners might have to find alternative placements or interventions that offer a stable and safe location for the child, even outside the family. The concept of safeguarding extends beyond maintaining family connections; it is about creating a safe, supportive, and stable environment for the child, wherever that might be. Practitioners must assess each case individually, recognizing that safeguarding and well-being are unique to the child’s circumstances. Covey (1989) reinforces this principle, advocating for decisions based on transparent principles and values, where the child’s immediate and long-term safety remains the focus rather than allowing personal or societal biases around family unity to dictate case outcomes. Practitioners should always strive to support families in meeting safeguarding standards. However, when it becomes evident that a family environment compromises the child’s safety, they must take action that prioritizes the child’s welfare.

Therefore, allowing case drift in the hope of eventual reunification without addressing significant safeguarding concerns can inadvertently expose the child to further trauma. Prolonged exposure to uncertainty and inconsistent care can lead to a host of issues that have been mentioned earlier. When practitioners allow drift to persist for reunification, the risk of cumulative harm increases, creating a pattern of instability and broken trust that can have lasting impacts on the child’s well-being. Ultimately, safeguarding decisions in child welfare must center on the child’s needs, irrespective of where they may be. By maintaining a commitment to structured, principled safeguarding processes, practitioners can ensure that each decision reflects the child’s best interests without allowing case drift to undermine their safety and emotional health. While family bonds are significant, they should never override the fundamental responsibility of providing the child with a secure, stable environment promoting healthy development. Practitioners must act proactively, even when it requires difficult decisions, to prevent further trauma and to protect the child’s right to safety and well-being.

Conclusion

In sum, preventing case drift in child welfare requires a comprehensive approach integrating structured safeguarding frameworks, collaborative networks, regular reviews, continuous training, and accountability mechanisms. By embedding these strategies into practice, child welfare organizations can create a more resilient and focused system that prioritizes the child’s well-being and aligns all stakeholders with safeguarding goals. This holistic approach supports practitioners, builds family trust, and enhances the effectiveness of interventions, ensuring that each case is managed with a clear, consistent, and child-centred focus.

Example Dialogue: Supervisor's Check-In with Practitioner on a Fictional Child Protection Case

Supervisor: Hi, Sarah. Thanks for meeting today. I wanted to check in on the Jackson family case. You have spent time with them recently, so I would love to hear your perspective on how things are progressing.

Practitioner: Absolutely, thanks. The Jacksons are dealing with a lot, and I feel stuck. The family dynamics are complex, and despite our efforts, I worry we are not moving forward as quickly as I had hoped.

Supervisor: I understand. Let us unpack it together. What stands out about the Jackson family's needs from your recent meetings?

Practitioner: Well, both parents seem genuinely committed to improving their situation, but there is much instability, particularly around the state of the home, and not much has changed. I worry that these issues overshadow what we aim to achieve for the children’s safeguarding and well-being.

Supervisor: It sounds like the state of the home is your priority. What are your thoughts on how that impacts the children directly? On a scale from 0-10, how do you feel the existing plan/interventions effectively align with their current needs (where 0 is not at all, we need to start all over, and ten is we nailed it, it is not the plan, it is something else?)

Practitioner: That is a good question.  I am at a 5 today because I have been so focused on stabilizing the parents’ situation that I have not asked the children about their worries or struggles with the state of the home as much as I should. The children, especially the older ones, seem anxious and withdrawn. I wonder if they are feeling overlooked in all this.

Supervisor: It is insightful that you noticed that. Given that observation, what might be the children’s priority needs in this context? How could your next steps reflect a shift toward addressing those needs?

Practitioner: I need to talk to them about this directly and hear how their home state impacts them. I could set aside time for the children to discuss their experiences. That way, they will feel seen and heard, and I can gauge how they cope with everything.

Supervisor: That sounds promising. What else do you think could help in bringing their voices forward? How might you involve them in a way that aligns with their unique perspectives and experiences?

Practitioner: I could explore having child-centred sessions where they feel safe expressing themselves. I also think I might incorporate art or play activities to help them communicate comfortably, especially since they are young.

Supervisor: That is a creative approach, Sarah. How would you ensure that the information you gather returns to the network and parents and is incorporated into the safeguarding plan? 

Practitioner: I will schedule follow-up sessions with the network and parents and involve the children to ensure their voices are heard, and rules are drafted to address their needs and worries.

Supervisor: I like that proactive stance. Now, thinking about the bigger picture, what outcomes are we aiming for with the Jackson family, and how does each action contribute to those goals?

Practitioner: Ultimately, I want to ensure the children feel safe and supported, even as their parents face these challenges. That means creating an environment where they can thrive independently of the parents' progress. My work should be about helping the children build resilience, not just waiting for the family situation to stabilize.

Supervisor: Exactly. Keeping that outcome in mind, what action could you take this week to further that goal?

Practitioner: This week, I will start with a one-on-one session with the older child to explore his feelings about the situation. I will also meet with the school counsellor to get another perspective on his emotional state and behaviour.

Supervisor: That sounds solid. How might you monitor these actions to ensure they have the desired impact on the children?

Practitioner: I will track their responses, note behavioural changes, and communicate openly with other family professionals. That way, I can adjust if I notice anything that needs immediate attention.

Supervisor: Great thinking, Sarah. I am confident that your insights into facilitating the safeguarding plan with the family and their network will lead to meaningful support for the Jacksons. Let us connect soon to discuss how these new steps unfold.

Practitioner: Thank you for guiding me through this. I feel more grounded in supporting the children without losing sight of the family’s broader challenges.

Example Dialogue: Supervisor's Check-In with Practitioner on a Non-Engaging Family

Supervisor: Hi, Emily. I wanted to check in on the status of the Diaz family case, particularly since you mentioned some challenges with family engagement. Could you share where things currently stand?

Practitioner: Sure. The Diaz family has been challenging to connect with lately. Despite multiple attempts, they have been unresponsive to meetings, and when they do respond, they seem defensive and unwilling to discuss gathering their safeguarding network. I am increasingly worried that this process is taking too long; it has already been 60 days, and they have not found anyone. 

Supervisor: I can see why that would be worrying. What is most critical for Luis’s safety and well-being now?

Practitioner: I believe we need to make some difficult decisions. The family is unwilling to identify their network, so we cannot proceed. I worry that without a network and a plan if Louis went home (because both parents promised they would not hit him anymore), his safety could be compromised. He also feels isolated, which affects his schoolwork and behaviour. However, I want to ensure we respect his family connections and avoid completely severing those bonds if possible.

Supervisor: You are right to consider his physical safety and connection to his family. What options come to mind for balancing those priorities, especially given that direct engagement with his family has not been successful?

Practitioner: If returning home is not safe right now, I think the next best step could be seeking guidance from our legal team on alternative placements. Maybe a temporary foster arrangement where he can still maintain contact with safe and supportive family members.

Supervisor: That sounds like a good direction. In thinking about other caregivers, are there specific people within his family or broader network that could provide a safe connection for him, even if he cannot live with them?

Practitioner: Yes. Luis’s maternal aunt has expressed concern about his situation. She has been open and communicative with me, so she could be a valuable person with whom he can stay connected while we work through this. If a temporary placement is needed, I could contact her about possibly facilitating regular visits or supervised calls.

Supervisor: That is a solid consideration. How do you think involving his aunt might affect his sense of stability and support during this time?

Practitioner: I think it would help him feel less alone. Even if he cannot be with his immediate family, staying connected with someone he trusts could reduce the trauma of separation. Moreover, it may help him feel that he still has a family he can rely on, which could be crucial for his emotional health.

Supervisor: That's a good point. Thinking about the next steps, what actions would you need to take to start this process with legal, with his parents, and with his aunt?

Practitioner: I will consult with our legal team to discuss the viability of a temporary placement. Once I have their input, I will contact Louis's parents and schedule a meeting to advise them of the next steps. I will then call his aunt to explore her willingness to look after Louis. I will document all of this so we are clear on each step moving forward.

Supervisor: That is an excellent plan. Let us also consider how we will monitor Luis’s well-being during this process. What would you need to ensure we are responsive to changes in his emotional or physical state?

Practitioner: I will coordinate with his school counsellor and check in weekly for updates on any changes in his behaviour. I will also document his responses to visits or calls with his aunt to track how he handles the situation.

Supervisor: That is thorough, Emily. It sounds like you prioritize his safety and emotional needs. When would be a good time to chat again to review his progress?

Practitioner: I would say in about two weeks after I have had the chance to consult legal, coordinate with his aunt, and observe Luis's initial reactions. I will bring any updates, and we can assess whether adjustments are needed.

Supervisor: That sounds good. I look forward to hearing how it unfolds. Remember, your insights are valuable here, especially as the one directly interacting with everyone. Thanks for your thoughtful approach.

Practitioner: Thank you. I feel more confident moving forward and know this will help keep Luis safe while respecting his family connections.

References

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.

Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2019). Making sense of change management: A complete guide to organizational change models, tools and techniques. Kogan Page.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in personal change. Free Press.

Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.

Forrester, D., Kershaw, S., Moss, H., & Hughes, L. (2008). Communication skills in child protection: How do social workers talk to parents? Child & Family Social Work, 13(1), 41–51.

Gillingham, P. (2011). Decision-making tools and the development of expertise in child protection practitioners. Australian Social Work, 64(1), 38–54.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.

Leve, L. D., Harold, G. T., Chamberlain, P., Landsverk, J. A., Fisher, P. A., & Vostanis, P. (2012). Practitioner review: Children in foster care—Vulnerabilities and evidence-based interventions that promote resilience processes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(12), 1197–1211.

Munro, E. (2011). The Munro review of child protection: Final report. A child-centred system. Department for Education.

Perry, B. D. (2001). The neurodevelopmental impact of violence in childhood. In D. Schetky & E. P. Benedek (Eds.), Principles and practice of child and adolescent forensic psychiatry (pp. 191–203). American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.

Perry, B. D., & Szalavitz, M. (2006). The boy who was raised as a dog: And other stories from a child psychiatrist's notebook—What traumatized children can teach us about loss, love, and healing. Basic Books.

Reder, P., Duncan, S., & Gray, M. (1993). Beyond blame: Child abuse tragedies revisited. Routledge.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.

Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143–150.

Stein, M. (2006). Research review: Young people leaving care. Child & Family Social Work, 11(3), 273–279.

Turnell, A., & Murphy, T. (2017). Signs of Safety: A solution and safety-oriented approach to child protection casework. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Unrau, Y. A., Seita, J. R., & Putney, K. S. (2008). Former foster youth remember multiple placement moves: A journey of loss and hope. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(11), 1256–1266.

Wilkins, D., & Whittaker, C. (2018). Doing child-protection social work with parents: What are the barriers in practice? The British Journal of Social Work, 48(3), 653–669.