6.12 Guidance for Work in Child Protection with Deaf Children or Children who Communicate in other ways, and their Families

1. Introduction

Effective communication is vital in order to:

conduct assessments of children suspected of being abused
allow the child to express his/her wishes and feelings, attend court and to have his/her experience understood
undertake therapy and counselling following abuse

2. The Deaf Child

There are 70,000 deaf children in this country (Office of Public Census & Statistics (OPCS), 1989). OPCS estimates that of these, 17,430 are deaf children using sign language. Many deaf children using sign language will fare better under child protection procedures. They are usually taught Sign Supported English (SSE) as opposed to British Sign language (BSL). Deaf children develop BSL as they move out of the school environment and into the deaf adult community.

3. Deaf Children with delayed language and poor pronunciation

The majority of deaf children, including those with a profound hearing loss, are educated in mainstream schools. These children are educated within an oral approach and have spoken English as their main means of communication.

However, due to the hearing loss, there is often a significant linguistic delay resulting in difficulties with comprehension and vocabulary acquisition. These children will then have difficulty understanding the subtleties of language and may have difficulty explaining the nature of the abuse. The hearing loss can result in a delay in social maturity and in understanding what is acceptable behaviour.

The child’s pronunciation may be unclear to unfamiliar adults. On a video recording the child’s speech may not be clear. It is therefore important that a Teacher of the Deaf is invited to any Strategy Meeting called in respect of a child with profound hearing difficulties. The meeting must then address how the teacher may act as a facilitator in the interview process and assist with any transcript of the recording. This must be undertaken in a manner that does not invalidate the recording from an evidential point of view.

4. Sign Language Interpreters

There are children who are educated by means of signing and on occasions, consideration will need to be given to the use of a sign language interpreter who is regarded as:

Fluent in two languages (Sign Language and English)
Someone who has received interpreter training.
A member of either the CACDP or SASLI Register of Sign Language Interpreters. (The Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People and the Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters).

There are three stages of training before registration:

CACDP Stage 1 Basic Course

CACDP Stage II Intermediate Course

CACDP Stage III Advanced Course or NVQ level 3

Registered Trainee Interpreters (Stage III or NVQ level 3) then follow on to become Registered Interpreters.

For the purpose of all child protection work the sign language interpreter must either be already on the CACDP/SASLI Register of Interpreters or a Stage III Trainee Interpreter. A list of such interpreters is retained in the Deaf Studies Research Unit at Durham University: 0191 374 2000.

All Registered Sign Language Interpreters must abide by the CACDP/SASLI Code of Practice.

5. Using Sign Language Interpreters in the Child Protection Process

5.1

The Interpreting Dilemma

Deaf children and their deaf parents in the child protection process will probably require the use of an interpreter.

The Achieving Best Evidence guidance provides advice for ensuring effective Interviews. It includes a section on Interpreters and Intermediaries – at paragraphs 2.36 to 2.40, which are set out in full.

“2.36 Interpreters should be appropriately accredited and trained, such that they appreciate the need to avoid altering the meaning of questions and replies. They should normally be selected from the National Register of Public Service Interpreters or the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People (CACDP) National Directory of Sign Language Interpreters. If it is not possible to select an interpreter from these registers then the interpreter may be chosen from some other list, providing the interpreter meets standards at least equal to those required for entry onto the National or CACDP Registers, in terms of academic qualification and proven experience of interpreting within the criminal justice system. While the familiarity of the interpreter to the child is not a bar to employment and may indeed facilitate communication, all interpreters need to be independent, impartial and unbiased. Family members or other close relatives should not be employed.

2.37 When the child’s first language is not English, or the child communicates using an interpreter, consideration should be given to the need for an interpreter. Careful thought must be given to the identity of an interpreter, for example, cultural norms and individual circumstances may make it more or less desirable that the interpreter is known to the child in addition to sharing the child’s first language. Additionally, an interpreter may be required to interpret an explanation of what is happening to other members of the child’s family. Other sensitivities on religious, cultural, or other grounds need to be respected, e.g. with respect to the interpreter’s gender.

2.38 British Sign Language (BSL) is a comprehensive language in its own right; problems with vocabulary for potentially abusive activities should not arise with BSL but could do with lesser developed communication systems. Some words in English may not have an exact equivalent in other languages and communication systems. The matter should be discussed to decide whether this is a potential problem for the planned interview.

2.39 If the child is very young, very traumatised, has an idiosyncratic or very specialised system of communication, then an intermediary rather than interpreter may be required. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 has introduced for the first time, the possibility of intermediaries assisting communications between the child and the court .... and it may be that a suitable adult can be identified to act as an intermediary for the video recorded interview. Many speech and language therapists can provide excellent assistance in communicating with disabled children whose physical impairments impede their communication, and may be well placed to act as an intermediary (i.e. as someone who knows both the child and their way of communication). Intermediaries must not be witnesses to fact in the case.

2.40 Discussions with the intermediary or interpreter at the planning stage should include the arrangements for leading the interview, legal and confidentiality requirements, and the exact role that the interpreter or intermediary will take..... The potentially explicit nature of the topics to be covered should be addressed; it may be that the interpreter or intermediary will require emotional support post-interview.”

Practically speaking, it may be almost impossible to secure the services of a qualified person, but it must be borne in mind that using an unqualified ‘interpreter’ may jeopardise the success of a criminal prosecution.

The word ‘interpreter’ should only be used for qualified persons who have had training and are registered. Others should be termed facilitators.

5.2

When teachers are asked to be ‘interpreters’ several factors must be considered:

They will rarely be qualified sign language interpreters.
They are unlikely to be familiar with or trained in child protection assessment processes.
Expertise may be challenged in court.

The use of family members/teachers/school workers for the deaf is not recommended except in “desperate” situations because:-

They may be abusers
They cannot be impartial
They are not bound by a code of confidentiality

90% (CACDC) of deaf children are born to hearing parents but we must not assume they are only born to English white families. Many deaf children belong to families who have another culture and language and may therefore require another interpreter for the hearing family members.

6. Strategy Meetings

It is absolutely vital in cases where an interpreter is to be engaged that the interpreter must be invited to attend the Strategy Meeting.

All information known about the family background and allegations should be shared with the interpreter.

Other matters for discussion and clarification at this meeting would be:-

What is the child’s language?
Seating arrangements in the interview or Child Protection Conference.
Camera angles if it is an Achieving Best Evidence interview (both the interpreter and the child must be seen on video)
Child’s names for body parts and sexual abuse if appropriate.
Who will support the interpreter?
Interpreters often sign and touch parts of the body. This could be construed as ‘leading’ so this must be planned and recorded prior to interview.
Rapport stage only may not be sufficient for interpreter to engage the deaf child; therefore an additional meeting in neutral surroundings may be required. The Crown Prosecution Service could be consulted in these circumstances.

7. Child Protection Conferences

If the child or a family member attending a Child Protection Conference is deaf, or has other communication difficulties, then the social worker should ensure that the Conference Chair is informed as soon as possible. They can then arrange to meet with the interpreter/facilitator and child or family prior to the start of the meeting.

8. References

(1)	Ref: A.B.C.D. Pack Abuse & Children who are Disabled D.O.H. (1993).
(2)	Margaret Kennedy, National Deaf Children’s Society, Disability & Child Protection, Training & Consultancy. (1996).
(3)	Bob Peckford, Director of Communication Skills, Council for the Advancement of Communication of Deaf People (CACDP), Durham University, Block 4, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3UZ Tel: 0191 383 1155

End