Recently in looked after children Category

Just a quick heads up about the final session of the parliamentary inquiry into children who go missing from care tomorrow, which will hear evidence from children's minister Tim Loughton and equalities minister Lynne Featherstone. Watch tomorrow's session here. 

According to the two all party parliamentary groups leading the inquiry, children's homes in England have recorded a worrying 631 incidents of young girls being groomed and sold for sex by men over the past five years. And that includes 187 incidents during the past 10 months.

The final session follows the convictions of nine men in Rochdale, found guilty of being part of a criminal gang that groomed and sexually exploited young girls. 

A report, following the inquiry, will be published this summer. I've also just learnt Michael Gove has ordered the deputy children's commissioner Sue Berelowitz to make recommendations within four weeks on how to protect girls (and hopefully boys too) in residential care from being preyed on and targeted for sexual exploitation. More on our news pages soon. (Pic credit: rikkichard)

Two Kent MPs are reportedly so worried about the number of children being placed in the county by London councils that they are calling for a law to prevent councils placing children more than 20 miles away. But this would be a mistake says Jonathan Stanley, Independent Children's Homes Association, policy and practice consultant

Most looked-after children need relatively 'ordinary' care and will find that a placement in or near their local community suits them well. But creating a universal rule about how locally children should be placed would undermine a key principle of the Children Act: ensuring the 'most appropriate' placement for a child.

We don't know what the implications would be if geography became the foremost factor in placement decisions. Geography cannot include the complexity of a child's needs. 

Family circumstances may be emotionally or financially strained. There may be considerable personal and family conflict. We need to be sophisticated in our thinking and planning.

The decision about whether to place a child locally must be a clinical one. It needs to assess the relationship between the child and the family, the effect of the local environment and the purposes and quality of the placement.

Listening to young people should help us decide how important distance is in individual placement decisions. After all, young people often say that distance has its benefits.

Being placed outside their local community can allow a child to 'channel, sift, and embroider family information.' Young people also frequently say that distance allows them to retain their own individual identity, while reassessing what it means for them to be a member of their family. They find they can belong to two places.

In the 1986 book Lost in Care, Spencer Millham found "relationships among, and aspirations of", professionals looking after children to be more important than "simple instrumental factors" like the distance between a child's family home and the placement they live in.

What we know is that some children need local placements and others more distant ones. What we need therefore is sufficiency and diversity. There may well be a correct or ideal proportion of local placements, but no one knows what that is. It is certainly not 100%.

You might also be interested in:

• CC Inform: Guide to April 2011 reforms to care planning and placements
• CC Inform: Looked-after children - assessment and making decisions about placement
  

As you will no doubt already know, the government is poised to publish a national adoption action plan to dismantle the current "bloated" system and replace it with a new set of duties, guidelines and - as some have already warned - pressures.

So what do you think? Has the government got the right approach or are ministers "romanticising adoption" and going for an easy public win on a complex issue? It is generally agreed that adoption processes need to be improved, but what do you think needs to change?

Are you a children's social worker with views about how the adoption changes will affect your job and the outcomes you can achieve for children? 

Do you have any concerns? Or are things moving in the right direction? Whatever your views, have your say by taking a few minutes to complete this (entirely anonymous) survey. Thanks.

Nushra Mansuri, professional officer at the British Association of Social Workers, says ministers need a more balanced approach to adoption reform.

It is rare for a politician to sing the praises of social workers, so Michael Gove's words last week were very welcome and a rightful endorsement of the profession.

It is rarer still for a right wing newspaper to carry a positive piece about social workers. So imagine my surprise when I saw a headline in the Daily Telegraph declaring, 'Michael Gove bravely stands up for social workers', citing the BBC series Protecting Our Children as brilliant.

Admittedly, Daniel Knowles (assistant comment editor) did describe us as the lepers of public services (that's another one to add to the collection!) but the article went to some pains, extensively quoting Gove's glowing affirmation of social work professionals.

They do say you should be careful what you wish for, however, and it didn't take long for me to feel rising indignation as Gove set out his stall for the government's adoption action plan. It included all the usual suspects: performance indicators; more sophisticated league tables; an end to 'political correctness' in terms of ethnicity and a slimmed down assessment process. 

While I would not dispute the present system being improved, it is frustrating that yet another politician chooses to hone in on adoption as if it was the panacea for all children in care rather than for roughly 6-7% of children.

It is fitting that Gove was speaking from London's Isaac Newton Centre as I felt some of what he said defied the laws of gravity. He called for a quicker, more robust and effective system, with no promise of additional resources. More from less is very much the order of the day. 

Adoption, it would appear, is an irresistible passion for many of our political leaders (recently Gove and Cameron, latterly Blair). It can be over simplified and romanticised: "Adoption is - in every sense of the word - for good. And the readiness of adults to make such a firm and unselfish commitment for a child they cannot know is, to my mind, an inspirational example of humanity at its best." (An excerpt from Gove's speech) 

Some of my best friends have adopted children and even my grandmother was adopted, but I would contend that it is not necessarily a completely selfless act. Many adopters, it is okay to say, are motivated by a common desire to be parents.

Wherever possible, children should be placed with adopters from a similar background. This may not be possible in every circumstance but it is not a factor that should be ignored or minimised. Unfortunately, we still do not live in a world where race equality has been achieved and so adopting a 'colour blind' approach merely masks the social reality.

I also worry about the recent furore over the increase in the numbers of children going into care. On the one hand, the allegation is that councils are overreacting to a major child abuse tragedy, but on the other hand, many children - particularly those suffering from neglect and abuse - are being left in dangerous situations for too long and this is to be welcomed. 

I think the issues are more complex than that. I worry that with the current lack of resources and pressures on services, we are not able to intervene early enough and provide families with the vital support that might overt some of these crises. It would be tragic if the pendulum swung back to the pre-Children Act days when many more children were taken into care.

Gove accused the Labour government of leaving a legacy of the worst kind regarding adoption practice, labelling it as social engineering. Equally, I would ask policy makers and politicians to think carefully about writing off so-called 'feckless' parents rather than engaging with them and offering them parenting support.

Please Mr Gove, you have recognised the talents and skills of the profession, now you must help us to put them to best effect so we can transform the lives of children in this country. We need good, holistic services for children and their families, enabling us to intervene earlier, faster and more decisively when children are at risk of harm and should not be left.

I'm not a physicist, but I believe the laws of gravity are about keeping things in balance.

Sharon Shoesmith, the former Haringey children's services director who last year won a case for unfair dismissal following her sacking in the wake of the Baby P case, hopes the recent BBC documentary series can begin to challenge the 'institutionalised' blaming of social workers.

Bristol council should be commended for taking part in the television series Protecting Our Children, shown recently on BBC2. It took great courage.

Social workers will have a range of views, of course, but I would urge them to concentrate on the important start the series has made in raising public awareness about child protection. My only criticism is that the three films gave no sense of the sheer volume of work that social workers deal with on a daily basis, or how many children in Bristol are subject to child protection plans.

The fact that we are now at a 20-year peak of 42,700 children considered to be 'at risk' in England - a figure that would shock many people - was not conveyed by the films. Equally, the fact that one child dies at the hands of a parent or a known adult every week in England also remains generally unknown by the public.

Between the deaths of Victoria Climbié in 2000 and Peter Connelly in 2007, over 400 children died in England and Wales at the hands of a parent or known adult. These are deaths that the public, including politicians, have no knowledge of. And these figures would double, and almost treble, to two or three a week if child deaths where neglect was a factor were included.

The unspoken taboo

Child homicide receives little attention or public debate because the scale of the deaths is largely unreported. In many cases social workers are not even aware of the incidents. It is the unspoken taboo.

The sad truth is that the killing of Peter Connelly was not an isolated case, but an all too regular occurrence. Yet it would appear wider society simply cannot face the unpalatable truth that some parents will kill their own children. Instead, the immediate reaction is that social workers have not done enough and someone must be sacked.

The public demand that all children deemed to be 'at risk' must be saved, but unfortunately that is not always possible. As a result, social workers are carrying too high a burden on behalf of society. In some cases, they are left to struggle alone with the reality of being cast as responsible for the brutal murder of a child.

Harrowing play

Last week in London's Soho I saw 'Shallow Slumber', a play by social worker Chris Lee. I urge everyone to try to get it staged where they can get to see it.

The mother in the play gives a powerful account of 'the logic' behind how she came to kill her child. It is utterly harrowing. During a discussion after the play, its producer said the scenes may be too disturbing for non-specialist audiences. No one, it seems, would want to see it.

So is it only for social workers to know, and 'own', child homicide so everyone else can stay blissfully unaware?

London's Southbank is soon to stage a play based on Veronique Olmi's novel, 'Beside the Sea', about a mother who kills her children. The book was a success in Europe when it was published in 2001, but it has only recently found a publisher in Britain. Again, this suggests the British public is apparently unwilling or unable to face these issues. This must change.

Institutionalised blame

The protection of children is one of society's most important duties, but society as a whole must act in concert and not just assume child protection is a job for social workers alone. We are all child guardians but the public need to be educated about the scale of the problem.

Blaming social workers, in my view, has become institutionalised: embedded in government policy and in the actions of local authorities and social work organisations. And, ironically, blame has also been absorbed by social workers themselves.

Social workers live in fear that 'it' might happen to them, hence the large numbers of children being brought into care - the highest number in the country's history and possibly one of the highest proportions in Western Europe.

For me, that means children's social care is not only out of control, but driven by blame and fear. It should be based on an explicit social care policy, with an appropriate set of checks and balances, and with an unequivocal understanding that there is no entirely foolproof system to protect all children from maltreatment inside their own homes.

Changing the culture from within

I believe it is only social workers themselves who can change the blame culture they are struggling to work within and rebuild their confidence as professionals.

I came from outside the profession and perhaps that's why I was able to see the blame culture for what it was, and resist it. I did not sack social workers in the case of Peter Connelly. My impression has always been that it was Ed Balls, then Secretary of State, who ordered it.

In the last few years, I have been profoundly struck by the absence of a strong national voice for social workers, indeed an advocate for social workers. There's been many a 'new dawn' in children's social care but is there a moment now for the courage of Bristol social workers, and of Chris Lee, to inspire social workers to draw a line in the blame culture?

It is they who must challenge it. And it is for their professional organisations to get behind them - to get out there with a loud, independent and distinctive voice - to show some courage on behalf of social workers. Only then can child homicide get the serious attention it deserves, which may save more children.

My best wishes to all in very difficult times, and my congratulations to social workers in Bristol and Chris Lee.

(Pic: Gavin Rodgers/Rex Features)

Junior family lawyers are being forced to handle 'life and death' child care cases because of the rise in care applications, jeopardising children's access to justice, according to this interesting story in the Law Society Gazette today.

Naomi Angell, co-chair of the Law Society's family law committee, told the publication that law firms have responded to increased workloads by reorganising their practices so junior staff are helping with case preparation.

She warned: "Are junior staff equipped to make difficult decisions where there are alcohol, drug or mental health issues? Can they persuade a mother in an abusive relationship to choose between her partner or her children? Are they trained to make decisions that could mean the difference between life and death? I think not."

Barbara Hopkin, of the Association of Lawyers for Children, said the current situation was unsustainable. "The rising number of care applications means an unlimited source of work for those firms who can afford to do it.

"We all took a 10% cut in civil legal aid fees in October 2011, which led to some firms going out of business or just giving up publicly funded work. Those of us who are left are expected to do more work for less money, which is no incentive for future generations of lawyers to work in this area of law. The situation is unsustainable," she said.

Is this impacting on children's guardians working in tandem with lawyers on care cases? If you have a view on this, have your say on CareSpace.

Picture credit: katerha

Eleven councils in southern England are to jointly commission specialist foster placements in a bid to make savings and reinvest the money in services for looked-after children.

Southampton council will head up the group, called the Independent Fostering Agency.

The 11 councils, including Oxfordshire, Surrey and Hampshire, have about 650 children placed with around 50 different independent fostering agencies, costing £29m per year.

Southampton anticipates a saving of 7.4% (£160,000) in the first year of the contract alone.

Cllr Jeremy Moulton, Southampton's cabinet member for children's services, said the new arrangements will "help to ensure that we are able to offer the children in our care the best chance of fulfilling their potential by ensuring a greater choice of local placements, greater placement stability, and robust contract management to maintain quality".

Picture credit: Mel B

by Dr Lucy Rai, senior social work lecturer at the Open University

The final episode of the BBC series Protecting Our Children, I want my baby back, showed three families facing the possibility of separation from their children for very different reasons.

A race against time

In the first case, we saw mum Louise trying to overcome a drug addiction so she could resume care of her baby, Mercedes.

Underlying the work with Louise was the ticking clock of her baby's developmental needs, set against her own timetable of addiction recovery. The priority was to provide Mercedes with a permanent, stable parent figure before she reached an age where changes in carers could forever harm her ability to form secure attachments.

Sadly this left Louise with very little time to achieve some momentous tasks: beating her drug addiction, withdrawing from methadone and completing a residential detox programme. Like Tiffany, the mother in episode one, Louise demonstrated real love for her baby by recognising that she was unable to meet her baby's needs in the time available.

More harsh decisions?

In the second case, we followed a mother who was failing to protect her baby from a known paedophile who shared the care of the child.

Despite clear evidence of the risk to the baby, there was a total lack of cooperation from the mother. Although there was no medical evidence of sexual abuse, the child showed worrying behaviour - such as obvious distress when having his nappy changed and being overly familiar with strangers - which indicated sexual abuse.

We saw the baby being removed by a social worker, with support from the police. This may have seemed dreadfully harsh but it is very unusual, as the team manager explained. Sexual abuse is a difficult area to respond to, and with less clear evidence of immediate risk it is normal to proceed slowly.

Multi-agency support at a time of crisis

The third case followed a mother who needed support to provide a safe, sanitary home so she and her seven-year-old daughter could be reunited.

We saw the intensive resources that can be arranged to help a parent in crisis. We saw social services, housing and environmental health workers working collaboratively to empower the mother to regain control of her home and realise her parenting capabilities.

The level of risk was very different in this case, because the child was older and the mother had been a good parent but was struggling during a personal crisis.

Child development

All three cases showed that social workers need to have a sophisticated understanding of child development. Mercedes needed quick decisions to meet her need for a secure home before she was a year old. The daughter in the 'dirty house' had both physical and emotional needs for a safe and clean home. The risk to the baby boy was heightened by observations about his behaviour - concerning behaviour in such a young child suggested his attachments were not secure and there may have been multiple, inconsistent carers in his life.

Child development plays a significant part in the education of social workers, and this programme exemplified well why this continues to be so important.

• The Open University has put together a range of resources to accompany Protecting our Children: www.open.edu/openlearn/startyourday