Child B, we worked together on his understanding of his diagnoses of ADHD and autism, we explored how these looked to Child B and in what ways did Child B feel ‘different’. We then used a comic strip to create a story that Child B could use to explain autism and ADHD to his school friends who may not fully understand why he sometimes behaves or thinks differently to them. (PCF 3 and 7).

I was able to see this case through to closure; the family had made positive progress in terms of understanding the individual needs of both children and both the children and mother were engaging well with universal services. Through intensive support from mental health services, Child A had recognised and developed some alternative coping strategies, leading to a reduction in self-harm. Child B received support from his play therapist to recognise his learning style and his school agreed to incorporate this into his lessons, this enabled Child B to feel more involved and focussed. Both mother and father worked with me to further develop their understanding of their children’s individual needs and they worked together to ensure that both households were consistent with their routines and boundaries; this was particularly important for Child B due to him having autism.

A range of legislation and policies were used to inform my practice throughout this case. The main legislation being the Children Act 1989; ensuring that thresholds for section 17 Child in need are met, along with section 10 which states that professionals should work in partnership with each other. Alongside this, the Working Together to Safeguard Children documents, published by the department of health in 2018 outlines the expectations of multi-agency working in order to keep children and young people safe. (PCF 4, 5 and 6).