Sometimes love is not enough

Yesterday evening, I watched When a Mother’s Love is Not Enough, a television programme that explored the issues and difficulties involved in being parent to a disabled child and was extremely honest, compassionate and thought provoking, and at times, a harrowing indictment of the ways in which the social care system lets down the millions of informal carers that it relies on to function in a manner that the state can afford.

The stress experienced by carers is widely acknowledged and this programme did not pull any punches, with parents who had come to the brink of killing both themselves and their child telling their stories.  As they described the exhaustion and frustration caused by being unable to comfort a child who cries for days at a time, or is abusive and injures himself relentlessly, or is reliant on you for all his needs yet unable to communicate or relate to you in any way, I found a new understanding developing for those who do find themselves before the courts having taken drastic action in moments of despair.

I remember a tutor once questioning why our courts often treat carers who snap or abuse those in their care more leniently than we do those who abuse children.  Her argument was that carer stress is no different than the stress suffered by any parent who is sleep deprived during the first few months with a newborn.  My argument was then, and remains, that the situations are very different: as a new parent, you know that sleep deprivation is inevitable but will not last forever, and you choose to experience that.  Most carers, however, do not consciously choose to become carers- they fall into it, as a spouse becomes old and frail, or suffers illness or trauma, or a child is born unexpectedly disabled.  Carers cannot usually take refuge in the hope that the situation will improve after a  few months, and rarely have the small army of helpers that a new baby frequently attracts.

As social workers we are required to offer carers an assessment of their needs, in addition to assessing those of the person they care for.  However,  due to the chronically underfunded and overstretched social care system, many local authorities set the threshold for receipt of services under the Fair Access to Care Services legislation at those carrying a ‘critical’ or ’substantial’ risk to quality of life, and additional funding to meet carers’ needs is simply unavailable, or very low priority.

The implications of this are obvious. If a carer was able to access emotional support, advice, and practical help such as respite care and support from professional carers to enable them to pursue other interests, their physical and mental health would benefit, impacting upon the people they are caring for.  It may also help to prevent today’s carers becoming users of mental health services or the criminal justice system tomorrow. This would require increased financial investment however,  and social care has traditionally been the poor relation to health, education, justice and all manner of other funding priorities.

Commenting that both the current Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition have experiences of caring for disabled children, the presenter wondered what effect this might have on future policy decisions affecting carers. It seems unlikely: recent policy consultations have focused upon the future of adult social care funding, but sadly emphasised care for older adults, ignoring the needs of younger people.  Would things change very much under a Conservative government? Who knows- as yet, very wisely, David Cameron is keeping specific policy intentions largely to himself.

On a personal note, however,  as I prepare for my final placement within a mental health service the need to be aware of both the role and needs of carers has been highlighted again, with an impact I hope will not fade from my mind quickly.