Theoretical Underpinning Of Child Centred Practice

The concept of child-centered practice is a key facet within social work. The idea that children must be kept in focus while working all areas of practice means that social workers must constantly be aware of children and their needs. Furthermore, the concept of child-centric ideology often dictates practice decisions by social workers when in the field.

Overview of Child Centered Practice

Child centered practice can be extremely useful in guiding work with at risk children. Winkworth and McArthur (2006, p. 17) explain that there are four guiding principles relative to child-centered practice, these include the importance of recognizing developmental time frames, understanding and recognizing the needs of children in all forms of practice,

Furthermore, Winkworth and McArthur (2006, p. 14) state that the theoretical underpinning of child-centered practice is derived from two perspectives. Firstly, Winkworth and McArthur (2006, p. 14) explain that the “will perspective” which focuses on the individual needs and wants of children to exercise choice, is a key philosophical idea, which shapes child-centered practice. In addition, Winkworth and McArthur (2006, p. 14) state that the “interests” perspective, which describes what is appropriate in order to sustain a child’s welfare, is also a key theoretical underpinning of child-centered practice. Although, Scott (2009, p. 42) states that a child-centered approach is vital to protecting vulnerable children; there are a number of challenges, which may prohibit or cause complexity when implementing this approach. For

17) outline four key principles, which underpin the concept of child-centered practice. In order to better understand Joe’s circumstances these principles will be discussed relative to professional interpretations and the informing of practice. Firstly, relative to the recognizing of developmental time frames, concern may be raised in relation to Joe. For instance, Joe has long recorded issues concerning development, namely a global developmental delay, a visual impairment and mobility difficulties. However, Glasgoe (2005, 173) explains that children with known special needs are often outside of developmental time frames for children of a similar age, thus it can be said that Joe’s unusual developmental abilities may be attributed to his existing documentation of special needs. Furthermore, more recently concern has been raised relative to Joe’s physical appearance, which was documented to not meet developmental standards, during Alison’s meetings with addiction services, therefore leaving room for concern. Relative to the recognizing of Joe’s needs in all areas of practice it can be said that many of the social agencies involved within the given case have offered care and assessment to each of the children while working with Alison and Derek. For instance, Alison’s addiction workers have reported a decline in Joe’s physical appearance, a general practitioner has reported Joe’s missed medical appointments and a range of