Readers have responded in droves to Liberal Democrat John
Hemming's allegation that
adoption targets are driving social workers to unnecessarily take
babies and small children into care.
The large majority of you were incensed or simply perplexed by
his views; though a handful voiced some support for his
position.
We put your opinions to Hemming and he has responded. Here are a
selection of those exchanges (readers' views are in italics):
Mr Hemming produces no evidence for the allegations he
makes. All my colleagues and everyone involved in child
protection/adoption take these difficult decisions extremely
seriously and practice based on evidence.
Hemming: I have two sources of evidence. Statistical evidence
that demonstrates that the trend in care proceedings has been to
take increasing numbers of young, healthy white babies into care
while no substantial shift has occurred with older children. I have
also the source of individual cases where I act as a lay
advisor.
Zoe Davidson: I am a social worker of 21 years' experience
working with children and families in statutory agencies. I
currently work in the family courts where the final decisions to
adopt a child are made. I find your comments quite astounding, and
I do not find that they match my experience in any way. Have you
based your views on a good body of evidence, or just a handful of
anecdotal information? Do you accept how much more difficult it
could make an already extremely complex job if views such as these
are publicised without first being tested against the reality of
the situation?
Hemming: I have looked at the statistical evidence, mainly the
SSDA903 returns containing information on looked-after children
which councils provide government with, and also around 130 cases
where I would argue that the system has misbehaved in some form or
other.
In all cases, decisions to remove children permanently are
made by a multi-professional process. Have you shadowed a social
work or CAFCASS team? What have you to say about other agencies’
roles in the decision-making process?
Hemming: The problems rest with a number of cases which are
wrong. Clearly intervention is needed in some circumstances. The
argument I am putting forward is that the decision-making processes
are skewed and causing both interventions to occur when they
shouldn’t and also interventions to not occur when they should.
Do you know that in many instances, social workers are often
faced with pressure to leave children at home in abusive
situations, in order to meet the targets of reducing the numbers of
looked-after children?
Hemming: Whereas there are budgetary constraints there are no
central government targets relating to the number of looked-after
children.
I completely support your recent comments and I think clear
investigation is needed.
Hemming: Thank you for this supportive comment. Many social
workers are frightened to speak out about what is going on. We
need an honest open debate to take the situation forward so that we
are protecting children, but also supporting families.
I am a practicing social worker, primarily with adults with
physical impairments, who are an extreme target with regards to
babies and small children and it is becoming a little
concerning.
Hemming: There are some easily identifiable targets that make it
easier to obtain ‘adoptible commodities’ to hit the adoption
targets.