at child 'protection' training 2 years ago. the class was told that every opportunity would be given to a chaotic drug user and her drug dealing/criminal husband to keep the kiddy. the police officers,gp's, nurses and teachers were stunned. it was then put to the trainer that if a couople with the same profile as those noted above came in to adopt/foster would they be allowed? ABSOLUTELY NOT! what is that about?

Hi get1,

I can't speak on behalf of the trainer but perhaps I can leave you some food for thought. The fact is, parents do not have to be as good at parenting as adopters or foster carers. Or, to put it another way, adopters and foster carers have to demonstrate that they surpass the average parent in terms of their abilities to care for children and that they have to be more than just 'good', whereas parents just have to be 'good enough'.

As for the example you give of a chaotic drug user and their drug dealing husband 'keeping' their kiddy, it is only right that they should be given every opportunity to demonstrate that they can meet their child's needs and keep them safe. Sometimes this can be done while the child is still residing with them although sometimes it is necessary to find alternative caregivers while the parents are properly assessed and given the opportunity to change their lifestyle. The decision to remove a child is - and should be - a difficult one and situations that on the face of it appear to be clear cut rarely are and each case needs to be assessed on its own merits, so to speak.

Now, my experience of working with other agencies is, on the whole, a positive one and so I don't want what I say next to appear too critical. It's certainly been my experience as a local authority social worker that where it has been identified that there are concerns for a child's welfare, the thresholds of other agencies (like the ones you mention above) in terms of removing children are often lower than that of social services and that we would have many more children separated from their families sooner and permanently if it weren't for social services arguing - often in the face of quite hostile professional criticism - that responses to concerns need to be planned, proportionate, and, most importantly, mindful of the law and statutory guidance. Certainly, on the face of it, it would be easier to just be risk-averse and remove a child 'just in case' but that wouldn't be in line with evidence-based social work or the law. In fact, it would just be plain wrong.

I hope this goes some way to answering your question.

nope.makes no sense. decent and good parents have to soooooooooomuch better than crap parents before a child is removed.and you wonder why the public have such little confidence in candf teams.it's all back to front due to some daft sandal wearing, yogurt knitting guardian reading nonsense.

OK so I'm rather angry now - just go and find something else to amuse yourself with rather than continue with your self-opinionated, prejudicial, ill-thought out, unfeeling and uncaring comments. If you ARE a social worker then give us your name and who you work for so that you can be reported to the GSCC. That way an independent appraisal can take place of your so-called professionalism

i think not.thats quite a vindictive and nasty response becuase you don't agree with me.be nice.

do you think it is better for a child to be moved back and forard from an uncarig and hopeless parent rather than permanent removal to guardians who will nurture and devlop a child ina stable envirenment?

i think this illustrates quite clearly that as social workers we are dammed if we do and dammed if we dont. if you know what i mean.  

damned if you don't.the child suffers.

praised if you do.child is looked after properly and the parent cannot cause anymore damage with their irresponsible behaviour.til the next time.....................they are irresposible. 

Neither do you appear to know very much about Attachment Theory - go and read some suitable books and then you will be able to comment from a much more informed and evidence-based basis. Removal can, and does, on some occasions result in long-term emotional damage to children despite how good their 'substitute' care might be.

Good grief get1. Please, please tell me that you are not a frontline worker. I will move heaven and earth before I remove a child, unless the danger is so immediate and so great to the child that there is no choice left. It breaks my heart when I have to do it, the damage that is done when removals happen is horrendous, in my opinion. Attachment theory - should be renamed Attachment FACTS. It is nothing to do with hypocrisy. Even children who have been sexually abused by the parent remain attached. We do not have the right to sever the attachment between a parent and a child under any circumstances. I don't care what the public think, to be honest. I only care about the kids, and how my action (or inaction) could affect them.

attachment theory is a THEORY. this is the problem with child welfare, we have people who are in responsible positions who will move heaven and earth not to remove a child from an upbrining that has skewed dynamics and great risks attached to it. yes, i work on the very front line and this is a new place to air my concerns about policy. unless the child is in grave danger they must remain.it's the child i feel for, not the irresponsible parents.

I am betting your the 'new breed' of sw who believes that all parents are an 'emotional' danger to their children, if the house doesn't look like the pictures in house and garden magazine the children are in mortal danger of 'embarrassment' and should be removed. If the parents work to make ends meet they are neglecting the child and must be removed. If the parent has choosen to stay at home and look after the child they are emotionally damaging the child by not letting them socialise at a nursery. If the parent is on a low income they are not materialistic enough. If the parent is on a good income they are too materialistic. I wonder if you are a sw or a manager?

Parents aren't perfect and never will be, somewhere along the line we all make mistakes and wrong choices, so what would you do remove all children at birth and put them into institutions so the 'state' can bring them up? Research shows us that children taken into state care are more likely to be the social dropouts of the future than children brought up by parents experiencing problems.

 Common sense is the order of the day, unfortunately the people at the top don't have any and it's effecting people like you on the front line, what we need is to get back to the old ways before labour took over and turned sw on it's head filled the offices with manager who do not have a clue and made sw's the hated profession it is today.

 

i'm not a s/w. i'm a GP. i agree with pretty much with what you are saying. a child should be removed irrespective of background or 'class'. common sense does not prevail, children are left in the most horrendous of circumstances because of 'attachment' theories. the child will not be very attached to anything when they attach themselves to the parents irre4sponsible behaviours and they end up another burden on society and the taxpayer with most likely a sociopathic and mewantmewantmewant outlook.

Ha! Ha! Ha! - you stupid person. A GP - my hat!!! Now just be a good person and get lost!

Is GI not very well? I am so worried about you and your vitriolic threads on this and another thread.  Or have you just made up your stuff - I do so hope you have.  If not you must be stopped at all costs from continuing.  I have never been so worried about anyone for a long long time.  Please get some help.