Parental competence and parents with learning difficulties

Tim Booth and Wendy Booth

Department of Sociological Studies, University of Sheffield, UK

Correspondence:
Professor Tim Booth,
Department of Sociological Studies,
The University of Sheffield,
Sheffield, S10 2TU, UK
Keywords: learning difficulties, mental retar-
dation, parenting.
Accepted for publication: October 1995
ABSTRACT
Parental adequacy is widely seen as a function of individual
parenting skills. This assumption renders parents with learning
difficulti,es vulnerable to discriminatory treatment in child
protection work. A presumption of incompetence leads practi-
tioners to focus on the parents’ deficits and intensifies concerns
about the welfare of the children. Using case material from a
recent study, the authors argue for a wider conception of good-
enough parenting that takes into account the external pressures
that impact on family functioning.

INTRODUCTION 60%) for the removal of children from the family

Parents with learning difficulties* too often receive
rough justice from the child protection system as a
result of the prevailing notion that parental adequacy
is a function of individual parenting skills. In this
article, we shall argue that a broader view of the
rudiments of competence is required as a basis for
assessing fitness for parenthood.
In making our argument we shall draw on case
material from a recently completed study of parents
with learning difficulties (Booth & Booth 1994b).
There has been scant research on these parents. One
of the gaps in this literature is that it has signally
failed to represent their real-life experience of the ups
and downs of parenthood. The aim of our study was
to provide a parents’ view of parenting as a counter-
weight to research in which the parents as people
make no appearance.
THE N O T I O N OF PARENTAL ADEQUACY
Parents with learning difficulties are widely presumed
to present a high risk of parenting breakdown.
Successive studies have reported high rates (40-
*The term learning difficulties rather than learning dis-
abilities, mental handicap, mental retardation or other
synonyms is used in this paper in line with the preferences
of the self-advocacy movement. See, for example, Werthei-
mer, A. (1988) A Voice of Our Own: Now and in the Future,
People First, 2nd International Conference, 3-1 0 September,
London. King’s Fund Centre, London.
home (Mickelson 1949; Scally 1973; Accardo &
Whitman 1990), and such evidence is often used to
support a general claim of parental inadequacy.
Oliver (1977), for example, pronounces that such
parents ‘continue to be incompetent rearers, whatever
supportive treatment is offered’. Similarly, Fother-
ingham (1980) concludes that few parents have the
ability to provide ‘conditions of care at the minimal
acceptable level.’ Indeed, Accardo & Whitman (1990)
assert that the only important question ‘with regard
to parenting failure of significantly mentally retarded
adults would seem to be not whether but when’.
Our study shows that such generalizations are not
grounded in the lives of parents themselves, and
provide an unreliable basis for child protection work.
The statistics on child removal owe as much to the
decisions of professionals and the courts as to the
behaviour of parents. The reality is that people with
learning difficulties frequently fall victim to an
expectation of parental inadequacy - what we have
elsewhere called a ‘presumption of incompetence’
(Booth & Booth 1993) - made real through the
decisions and actions of those with the power to
intervene in their lives. Such outcomes are made
possible by the lack of any agreed standards for
defining what constitutes adequate parenting or what
qualities are necessary to make a good-enough mother
or father.
Ideas about what parenting involves derive from
prevailing views about the nature of childhood. What

81 Child and Family Social Work 1996, 1, pp 81-86 0 1996 Blackwell Science Ltd
 Parents with learning difficulties T Booth and W Booth
are held to be the rights of children define the
responsibilities of parents. These views are not fixed
and universal. They change historically and vary by
culture, class, ethnicity and race (Jenks 1982; Kessen
1983; Hendrick 1990; Prout & James 1990). In
contemporary Britain, social work and its allied
professions in the law play a key role in prescribing
what is good for children, having been charged with
the task of safeguarding and promoting their welfare
(Department of Health 1989). Through their power
to determine what is in the best interests of the child,
these professions also help to shape the form that
parenting itself should take in society. In this way,
the boundary between good-enough and inadequate
parental care is fixed by the thinking and practice
prevailing among child care professionals. Practice
wisdom in social work with families and children has
traditionally drawn heavily on the perspective of
developmental psychology.
Mainstream developmental psychology displays a
substantial measure of agreement about the specific
dimensions of parenting that are important for child
development. Halpern (1990), for example, sum-
marizes this body of work as follows:
‘Children need to be protected from physical and psycho-
logical harm, and provided adequate nourishment. Be-
yond these basics, in infancy children need frequent hold-
ing, touching, smiling, and talking; in a word, nurturing.
They need a parent who is a mediator of environmental
stimulation, a parent who is sensitive to and accepting of
their moods, responsive to their cues, consistent in
behaviour, and available in the most fundamental sense.
For toddlers and preschoolers, additional amibutes such
as expanding and elaborating on play activities; a
cognidvely rich physical and social environment; firm,
consistent, and yet flexible mnuol strategies; and an
absence of restrictiveness have been noted as important.’
Beyond these generalities, however, there is no
agreement on what constitute acceptable standards of
good-enough parenting (Haavik & Menninger 1981).
The continuing debate surrounding t h i s issue high-
lights the problems of trying to construct a set of
objective measures. Critics argue that current notions
of parenting are largely derived from the experience
of white, middle-class parents and children, and
reflect the competencies needed for living in their
social world (Ogbu 1987). Children from poor and
minority families face different demands that call for
different parenting strategies (Laosa, 1979). Patterns
of care and nurturance designed to equip children for
life on the margin may not always match those
defined as optimal by mainstream psychology.
82 Child and Family Social Work 1996, 1, pp 81-86
While children are known to need care, nurture,
supervision, discipline and stimulation, the minimal
requirements defining parental competence in these
skills or how best they might be secured are imprecise
or unspecified. Consequently, practitioners working
with famiIies and children are generally obliged to
rely on their own values and subjective judgements
when making assessments.
The absence of explicit standards and the uncertain
nature of the links between parental competence and
child outcomes render parents with learning difficul-
ties vulnerable to discriminatory treatment in assess-
ments and child protection work. Child care law is
about balancing the right of parents to bring up their
children against the need to protect children from
harm (Hayes 1993). However, the law only provides a
broad framework within which decisions must be
made. The powers and duties of local authorities ‘give
wide scope for discretion’ (Department of Health
1989; para.l.2). As Harris (1990) remarks, the ‘day-
to-day common sense interpretations of the experts
and their managers will therefore shape the nature of
child protection practice more than the subtleties of
the language of jurisprudence.’ Parents with learning
difficulties are especially at risk of prejudicial judge-
ments being made against them because of the
ingrained doubts about their parenting capacity embo-
died in the widespread presumption of incompetence.
Czukar (1983) argues that parents with labels have to
meet higher expectations than others and, according to
Payne(1978), parents With leamhg difficultiesaremore
likely to be judged inadequate and deprived of their
parental rights than homosexual parents, incarcerated
parents or parents with mental health problems.
Recognizing these dangers, Attard (1988) puts
forward the following list of factors for consideration
by professionals when assessing the parental compe-
tence of parents with learning difficulties.
Finding and keeping appropriate accommodation.
Budgeting and money management.
Employment history and environmental strains.
The upkeep of the home.
Domestic management.
General care of children.
Time management and time keeping.
Health care, hygiene, home safety and the capa-
city to respond in an emergency.
Educational attainment of children and parents.
Self-esteem of parents.
The family’s extended support system.
0 Parents’ perception of support services and their
readiness to accept help.
0 1996 Blackwell Science Ltd

0 Discipline of the children and the moral conduct
of the parents.
Let us use Attard’s guidelines to explore the notion
of parental competence in more detail taking as an
example the case of the Pollock family from our own
study (pseudonyms have been used for all the family).
The Pollocks have not been selected because they are
representative of families where the parents have
learning difficulties, but neither are they atypical. The
particulars of their lives are unique but the issues their
story raises are common to families such as theirs. In
presenting the Pollocks we are primarily interested in
these wider resonances of their experience.
CATHY A N D LEN’S STORY
Cathy is the youngest child of a large family. When
she was 16 her mother died. All Cathy’s brothers and
sisters had moved away and she was left alone in the
care of her father.
‘My dad had affair with me. I had a baby to him. I didn’t
want baby to be put away, I wanted to keep him myself,
but my dad wanted to put away, you see, because then
nobody won’t know. I had to sign these papers to say I’d
put him away. Well after they took me off baby, my dad
used to be working every night. I used to do housework
and I got fed up of it. He used to lock me in house and he
used to take all the keys with him. I couldn’t get out. Then
he used to beat me up and that’s how I got in touch with
Mrs Richards. She used to be my health visitor. I told
Mrs Richards that he wanted affair every time and I
couldn’t give him it because I couldn’t face it you see. She
says, we’ll have to put you in hostel.’
Cathy was moved to a hostel for people with
learning difficulties and while she was living there she
met and fell in love with Len. She had known him in
the past when they had both attended the same
special school. They decided to set up home together
and moved into a council flat. Before long, Cathy
became pregnant and they were given a house on a
large council estate.
‘When we first moved in here, well, baby were due. We
only come in here about two or three days and then bloody
rats and mice were going round. We’ve had windows
smashed and stuff like that, we’ve had them all nearly
broke. Council used to do windows for nowt but you’ve to
pay for them now.’
Their first son, Stewart, was placed in foster care as
a baby when social services decided they were not
capable of looking after him. After he had been away
a year, Cathy and Len’s solicitor succeeded in
83 Child and Family Social Work 1996, 1, pp 81-86
Parents with learning difficulties T Booth and W Booth
convincing the court that the best place for him was
with his mum and dad. Since then they have had
almost no help or support from social services (‘They
told us that kids are going to special school and that’s
why we didn’t have nobody.’).
Two years later Cathy had a second boy, Justin.
Both children, now aged six and eight, have learning
difficulties: Stewart has additional behavioural pro-
blems and is being tested for epilepsy. Also, Len has
suffered intense periods of depression since the death
of his mother during which he sometimes has to
spend weeks at a time in a psychiatric hospital.
‘Len lost his mother last year. He was close to her. She
used to live close by us. She give us a lot of help and she
gived Len a lot of help, and she used to look after kids for
us. We didn‘t know till his brother come down and told
us. And then it started. Len were in hospital for two
months with his depression, He went in September, he
come back end of October. I couldn’t cope . . . it’s with
oldest getting older you see, he’s getting out of hand.’
At the same time, Cathy and Len were unable to
pay their poll tax and had also run up huge electric
bills and debts from borrowing from the Social Fund.
The family had reached a crisis point. When Cathy
told the school of her difficulties with her elder son’s
behaviour, the school medical officer called in a
community nurse.
T h e community nurse helped Cathy with some of
her son’s difficult behaviour and worked closely with
teachers at the school. She represented Cathy and
Len in court when they were summonsed for not
paying their poll tax. She helped them organize
monthly repayments for their other accumulated
debts, and found that they were entitled to a Severe
Disablement Allowance, Invalid Care Allowance and
Attendance Allowances for the boys.
Practical suggestions from the community nurse
allowed Cathy and Len to obtain an automatic
washing machine, beds and bedding, clothing and
shoes for the children. They also enjoyed their first
holiday - a week at Pontins - with money from the
Family Fund.
‘Whenyou have a social worker they ask you how much
money you get, stuff like that, and what you’re spending it
on, how much clothes, how much food you’re getting. BUK
community nurse never does that. It’s up to us what we
do, you see. Social workers always said if you’ve got a
problem you can come down and see us. But they don’t
come out and see you. Before we had community nurse we
asked for a social worker but they wouldn’t give us one.
They always said that when your kids are growing up you
can cope on your own.’
0 1996 Blackwell Science Ltd
 Parents with learning difficulties T Booth and W Booth
More recently Stewart has been giving Cathy and
Len further problems.
‘I went up to school to see one of head teachers. I told
them that we couldn’t cope with our Stewart because he
was swearing and biting and saying these ‘f words like
that. Community nurse’s been down to school but they
say he’s all right at school, he’s right quiet. But when he
comes home he starts. He doesn’t swear at school, he
doesn’t fight or owt at school. They can’t find out what’s
happening. They’ve told him to behave himself at home
but he never does. Might be his ways, they says, because
he’s getting older now.’
The community nurse has told Cathy and Len that
Stewart may have to go into care full time. They do
not want that, and neither does Stewart. At the
moment he is too much work for them when they go
out as he keeps running off and they cannot control
him. They put this behaviour down to his age.
Nobody has discussed with Cathy and Len that it
might be caused by Stewart’s learning difficulties.
Cathy says social services have told them that ‘you
can’t smack ‘em’ and that they must deal with
Stewart’s upsetting behaviour by sending him to his
bedroom. The community nurse has also talked of
Justin being taken into care as well but Cathy and
Len insist he is no problem.
ASSESSMENT
Cathy and Len are living under the threat of losing
one or both of their children on the grounds of their
inability to cope. Where have they gone wrong?
Referring back to Attard’s list of the factors that
need to be taken into account when assessing parental
competence, it is difficult to see the problems they are
experiencing as the result of a serious deficit of
parenting skills on their part. They have maintained a
home, managed a domestic routine and looked after
their children mostly without support from the
statutory services. There have never been any
criticisms of the love and care they give their
children. Stewart and Justin have attended school
regularly, are always appropriately turned out, and
have kept in good health. Cathy and Len have
recognized their need for help in some areas of their
lives only to have their requests turned down by the
social services. Their money problems have not
recurred since they began to receive all the benefits
to which they are entitled. The one area where Cathy
herself acknowledges she lacks skill is in setting
boundaries around her elder son’s behaviour.
84 Child and Family Social Work 1996, 1, pp 81-86
At the same time, again referring to Attard’s list, it
is clear that throughout their lives Cathy and Len
have experienced the kind of external pressures and
environmental strains that jeopardise early prepara-
tion for parenthood, undermine parental competence,
unhinge marital relationships and threaten family
functioning. Among the stressors they have endured
are:
0 childhood bereavement;
0 incest and teenage pregnancy;
0 physical abuse as a child;
0 removal of children as babies;
0 institutional upbringing as a child/young adult;
0 special school education;
0 poor parenting models;
0 poor housing conditions;
0 victimization in the neighbourhood;
0 poverty and debt;
0 unemployment;
0 two children with learning difficultieslbehaviou-
ral problems;
0 partner’s mental health problems;
0 no respite care for children;
0 no holiday or break from domestic routine;
0 no support from social services;
0 social isolation;
0 no phone or personal transport;
0 family trauma-the loss of a close supportive
relative;
0 the threat of losing their children.
These problems are serious enough to stretch the
coping abilities of any family, and many parents
without learning difficulties would buckle under the
pressure. Yet Cathy and Len remain very close - ‘we
still bloody love each other’ - and are deeply bound
up with their children. Indeed, it is not the difficulties
they are currently having with their elder son that are
noteworthy so much as their adaptability and dur-
ability under the press of their lives. Cathy and Len’s
parenting skills can only be deemed inadequate if the
external stresses bearing on the family are ignored.
A crucial turning point in their story is the death of
Len’s mother. This deprived them of a key source of
social support and pitched Len into a severe and
lasting depression that placed an additional burden
on Cathy. While Len was in hospital, Stewart started
playing up. It was then the family needed extra help
from the social services to see them through this
crisis, but none was provided. Cathy was left to cope
on her own.
It is hard not to conclude that Cathy and Len are
being blamed for shortcomings in the social services.
0 1996 Blackwell Science Ltd

Our research suggests that such a response is not
uncommon (Booth & Booth 1994a) and, indeed,
Lancashire County Council were censured by the
Local Government Ombudsman in 1991 for failing to
provide the level of counselling and support needed
by a mother with learning difficulties (Report by the
Local Government Ombudsman 1991). Cathy and
Len’s case also highlights the dangers of seeing
parental adequacy entirely as a quality of the person
and overlooking how it is bounded by the wider
context in which parenting takes place (Belsky 1984).
Too often this results in professionals blaming the
victim by putting all the problems parents may be
having down to their learning difficulties.
CONCLUSIONS
Cathy and Len are not unique in the predicament
they face. At least (for the moment) they still have
their children. Other families are less fortunate (see,
for example, Marchant 1995; Booth & Booth 1994b;
pp. 129-143). It is too easily assumed that the high
value put on the preservation of family ties by the
Children Act 1989 protects families like Cathy and
Len’s from unwarranted intervention by the child
protection authorities. Yet the evidence suggests that
the ‘opportunity to rethink practices’ (Department of
Health 1989; para. 1.2) which the Act provided has
still to be grasped in the case of parents with learning
difficulties.
Child protection teams generally have little experi-
ence of learning difficulties. This has two conse-
quences. It means that practitioners are more likely to
be led by the presumption of incompetence into
making pessimistic judgements of the likelihood of
children suffering significant harm because of a lack
of reasonable parental care. It also means they are
more likely to see the parent(s) as the problem, and to
attribute any difficulties to the parents’ deficits or lack
of skills. As Mandeville & Hoffman (no date) have
commented, the ‘parent’s perceived shortcomings
become such a prominent focus that contributing
factors such as poverty, powerlessness, lack of
community resources, and the stigma associated with
disability recede from conscious attention.’
Cathy and Len’s story points the way for the
rethink of practice that is now overdue. Their
parenting came under suspicion because of their
acknowledged difficulties with their eldest son’s
behaviour. Yet the spotlight on their parenting cast
a shadow over their resourcefulness and adaptability
in coping with past adversities, the environmental
85 Child and Family Social Work 1996, 1, pp 81-86
Parents with learning difficulties T Booth and W Booth
strains on the family, the lack of social supports and
the failure of the services to respond to the crisis
brought on by the death of Len’s mother. A number
of important general lessons emerge for practitioners
when assessing the parenting of people with learning
difficulties.
Parental competence is determined by more than
just the personal attributes of the parents: the
characteristics of the children (the Pollocks had
two boys with learning difficulties) and the
resources and support available to the parents
(despite living on the margins of poverty the
Pollocks coped well enough until Len’s mother
died) also enter the equation.
Current notions of parental adequacy tend to
over-emphasize the role of the parents in child
development and to under-emphasize the effects
of the wider social environment on parents’
ability to cope.
Practitioners must look beyond a person’s
learning difficulties when assessing parental
competence.
Parental adequacy is too often assessed from a
‘deficiency perspective’ that focuses on people’s
deficits and limitations at the expense of their
competencies and achievements.
Practitioners and the courts must learn to accept
that parent-child relationships may be worth
supporting even though the parents might not
have the skills to meet all their child’s needs.
REFERENCES
Accardo, P. & Whitman, B. (1990) Children of mentally
retarded parents. American Journal of Diseases of Children,
144,69-70.
Anard, M. (1988) Mentally handicapped parents some
issues to consider in relation to pregnancy. British Journal
of Mental Subnormality, 34, 3-9.
Belsky, J. (1984) The determinants of parenting: a process
model. Child Dwelopmenr, 55, 83-96.
Booth, T. & Booth, W. (1993) Parenting with learning
difficulties: lessons for practitioners. British Journal of
Social Work, 23,459-480.
Booth, T. & Booth, W. (1994a) Parental adequacy, parent-
ing failure and parents wirh learning difficulties. Health
and Social Care in the Communiry, 2, 161-172.
Booth, T. & Booth, W. (1994b) Parenting Under Pressure:
Morhers and Fathers wirh Learning Di’culties. Open
University Press, Buckingham.
Czukar, G. (1983) Legal aspects of parenthood for mentally
retarded persons. Canadian Journal of Community Mental
Handicap, 2, 57-69.
0 1996 Blackwell Science Ltd
 Parents with learning difficulties T Booth and W Booth
Department of Health (1989)An Introduction to the Children
Act 1989. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.
Fotheringham, J. (1980) Mentally retarded persons 0s
parents. Department of Psychiatry, Queen’s University,
Ontario, Canada (unpublished).
Haavik, S. & Menninger, K. (1981)Sexuality, Law and the
Developmentally Disabled Person: Legal and Clinical
Aspects of Marriage, Parenthood, and Sterilization. Paul
H. Brookes, Baltimore.
Halpem, R. (1990)Poverty and early childhood parenting:
toward a framework for intervention. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 60, 6-18.
Harris, R. (1990)A matter of balance: power and resistance
in child protection policy. Journal of Social Welfare, 5 ,
332-39.
Hayes, M. (1993)Child care law: an overview. In: Parents
with Learning Disabilities (ed. A. Craft). British Institute
of Learning Disabilities, Kidderminster.
Hendrick, H. (1990) Constructions and reconstructions
of British childhood an interpretive survey 1800
to the present. In: Constructing and Reconstructing Child-
hood: Conremporary Issues in the Sociological Study of
Childhood (eds A. James & A. Prout). Farmer Press,
London.
Jenks, C. (1982) Introduction: constituting the child. In:
The Sociology of Childhood (ed. C. Jenks). Batsford,
London.
Kessen, W. (1983)The child and other cultural inventions.
In: The Child and Other Cultural Inventions (eds A. Kessel
& A. Siegal). Praeger, New York.
Laosa, L. (1979)Social competence in childhood: toward a
developmental, socioculrurally relativistic paradigm. In:
Primary Prevention of Psychopathology, Vol. III. Social
86 Child and Family Social Work 1996, 1, pp 81-86
Competence on Children (eds M. Kent & J. Rolf).
University Press of New England, Hanover, NH.
Mandeville, H. & Hoffman, C . (no date) Supported Parenr-
ing: Summary of Lessons Learned. Wisconsin Council on
Developmental Disabilities, Madison.
Marchant, C.(1995)Parenting pain. Community Care. 19-25
January, 1415.
Mickelson, P. (1949) Can mentally deficient parents be
helped to give their children better care? AmericanJoumal
of Mental Dejiciency, 53, 516-534.
Ogbu, J. (1987)Cultural influences on plasticity in human
development. In: The Malleability of Children (eds J.
Gallagher & C.Ramey). Paul H. Brookes, Baltimore.
Oliver, J. (1977) Some studies of families in which children
suffer maltreatment. In: The Challenge of ChifdAbuse (ed.
A. Franklin). Grune and Stratton, New York.
Payne, A. (1978)The law and the problem parent: custody
and parental rights of homosexual, mentally retarded,
mentally ill and incarcerated parents. Journal of Family
Law, 16,797-818.
Prout, A. & James, A. (1990) A new paradigm for the
sociology of childhood? Provenance, promise and pro-
blems. In: Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood:
Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood
(eds A. James & A. Prout). Farmer Press, London.
Report by the Local Government Ombudsman (1991)
Investigation into Complaint no. 89/C/2577 against Lnnca-
shire County Council. Commission for Local Administra-
tion in England, York.
Scally, B. (1973) Marriage and mental handicap: some
observations in Nonhern Ireland. In: Human Sexuality
and the Mentally Retarded (eds F. de la Cruz & G.
LaVeck). Brunner/Mazel, New York.
0 1996 Blackwell Science Ltd