by Lauren Revans
The case of a newborn baby removed from his 18-year-old mother – known only as G – despite no care order being in place is undoubtedly an example of poor practice. Put quite simply, the legal processes that should have been followed before a child can be taken into care were not.
But the profession must not allow this story to be hijacked by the ‘baby-snatcher’ brigade. As soon as this story broke, certain elements of the press immediately started churning out stories about social workers removing children from vulnerable families to meet government-set adoption targets.
John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP who fuelled such claims in the summer over the child protection case against 22-year-old mum-to-be Fran Lyon, couldn’t resist the opportunity to re-enter the fray. Speaking to the Daily Mail, he said the case “illustrates again how the system is not working in the interests of the children or the families, it's working in the interests of the bureaucracy”.
Unbelievably, he then added: “What’s unique about this case is not the unlawful removal of a child, but that some lawyers have sufficient backbone to make the right application to the court to have the child returned to its mother.”
Wrong. What is unique about this case is that a child was removed from its mother – apparently by hospital staff after reading a ‘birth plan’ prepared by social workers – without an interim care order being granted first. In doing so, those involved acted outside the law.
What this case demonstrates is a worrying lack of understanding of child protection procedures on the part of the hospital staff involved and on the part the social workers who wrote the ‘birth plan’ if they were genuinely expecting it to be acted upon. What it does not demonstrate – despite what Hemmings and the Daily Mail might say – is a desire on the part of social workers up and down the country to willingly remove children from happy family homes.
The fact that Nottingham Council is now in the process of applying for the interim care order that should have been granted before any action was taken proves its very real concerns about G’s capacity to safely care for her son.
The important thing now is that it must also take action to ensure all its social workers fully understand child protection laws and procedures. And the local hospital must ensure all its staff working with children and families understand these important matters too.
On the basis that best social work practice means 'no surprises' why did the social work team / other professionals not ensure that there had been a pre-birth child protection conference? Had that occurred then it would be my asumption that all involved would have been clear about their future actions (including any legal involvement).
If the 'birth plan' had been properly drawn up, one would also expect the mother to have been fully involved. If she was deemed to have mental health problems / learning difficulties then she should have also been offered the services of an advocate who would, undoubtedly, have advised her to seek immediate legal advice.
After what has happened, the chances of mother and the relevant authorities working in 'partnership' must have been severely compromised.
While I fully agree that this case should not result in an outcry against social work and health staff, there are serious questions which need to be asked and these must include the role of more senior managers / decision-makers.
I agree that a media frenzy is not helpful. Equally, if it is true that social workers and their managers removed the baby without parental consent or an order, we need to reflect on ourselves very carefully.
We cannot simply cry "media persecution". We have no special priveleges and have to get our act together. We must act in a lawful, dignified and professional manner.
There are too many poorly practised, over-zealous workers among us whose values can be rightly questioned. They give the profession a bad name.
Sometimes a minority of social workers treat service users in the most appalling manner. This, in my opinion, is especially true of the way in which care leavers with babies are sometimes treated.
While some social workers are outstanding, others are so poor it is cringeworthy. The uneven practice creates a lottery for service users. They start wondering 'who will I get?'.
The profession needs to root out those who cannot practise appropriately and give the profession a bad name. We cannot hide behind claims of a "media witch hunt" or allow poor practice to flourish because we need all the social workers we can get.
It isn't sufficient to blame the hospital staff "What this case demonstrates is a worrying lack of understanding of child protection procedures on the part of the hospital staff involved" the bottom line is social work by its very nature works within a defined legal framework. Ignoring that legal basis leads to allegations that the profession - or some individuals rather - play fast-and-loose with the law. Step over the line and the term "Child Snatcher" starts to gain credence, as indeed it has here. The Fran Lyon case, so appallingly mishandled, both from a professional and a media point of view by Northumberland Social Services put the subject of forcible removal of babies from hospital slap bang into the publics awareness. This "Baby G" case couldn't have come at a worse time for the profession.
Battening down the hatches and blaming the 'Mail and 'Hemmings for what appear (in this case) to be pretty legitimate concerns just won't do; Like any profession, those who bring it into disrepute need to be exposed and hounded-out before the public loses what remaining faith it has in social work, to the detriment of all, not least vulnerable children. To cure ourselves we must first recognise that there is a problem and this case pretty much makes it clear there's a problem - and its a pretty big problem too.
The negative reporting of this case was based on numerous assumptions and anyone with expertise in child protection should have had serious questions about the reports and realised immediately that all was not as it seemed.
If some facts of the case are made public at a later date, I wonder if any of the press will be interested in reporting details of the complex and specialist task of social work in children's services.
Regardless of the reasons for this childs removal, the 'professionals' involved acted outside the law.
This was not a 'mistake'; nor is it 'bad practice'. I refuse to accept that the social workers who took this child didn't realise they were in the wrong, which, in my opinion, makes them no better than the person(s) who abducted Madeline McCann.
I suspect there is more to this story than meets the eye, but only time will tell...
Liz Davies may well be right that "...all was not as it seemed", but what certainly seems to be right is that the child was initially removed in the absence of any legal order in place (if the need for protection was immediate then a Police Protection Order would have seemed the most appropriate), that a judge had cause to order the immediate return to mother of the baby as a result of its removal, that the judge made certain directions in respect of the pathway plan for the mother, and that an Interim Care Order was subsequently granted by a district judge resulting in the baby being taken into foster care.
By any stretch of the imagination, the initial removal and reunifcation actions were not good practice and appear to have been entirely preventable. The potential harm caused by the subsequent removal was also regretable - perhaps more to mother than baby initially, but the longer-term possible effects also need careful evaluation.
The evidence in relation to the risk that mentally ill mothers present to their children is not clear (assuming that one is not addressing post-natal depression/psychosis/other major mental illnesses) and, having worked with mentally ill mothers in that position, I also feel that the lack of mental health training for child care social workers also needs addressing - I trained generically and was both a Mental Welfare Officer and then an Approved Socail Worker (ASW).
I am pleased that the Local Safeguarding Board is going to look into this whole matter but hope that it won't be another case of "we will learn the lessons".
The lessons/procedures/practice guidance/llegal framework are all firmly in place. What is needed is to know why they appear not to have been understood properly or followed by both health and social services, and who is accountable.
Should the true facts surrounding this case ever emerge, I think it is a fair bet that we will read about them in the national media only if they are favourable to the mother's case. Similarly, the true facts about the Fran Lyon case have failed to surface. Unless the profession gets a grip on this, it will find itself fighting every single one of these cases in the court of misinformed public opinion.
It is deeply disturbing that correspondents such as Measures, Banville and England are only too willing to believe tabloid nonsense. It is quite clear that the reportage could not have been right and is clearly self-contradictory.
No High Court order could ever have been made and countermanded in a lower court by a district judge in care proceedings (see Guardian, 2 February 2008).
Clearly, the High Court proceedings were about the mother not the child and the judge was making an observation - "on the face of it" - possibly allowing those that want to to jump to conclusions that betray their prejudices.
What does this distortion tell us about the removal? The manipulation of the facts clearly indicates to anyone with a microcosm of knowledge and experience about child protection that something is very awry with what's being peddled by the press and pro-parents' rights zealots such as Hemmings.
Isn't it just as likely that child protection procedures were carefully followed and the separation from mother (no evidence of removal from hospital!!!) was effected to prevent risk of significant harm part of a child protection plan?
Professionals should be more discerning and not jump on the hysteria bandwagon because this is easier to do in the face of the parental rights lobby. Colluding with distortion and lies is not the way to defend the profession or to protect children.
Strange how you choose to overlook the ruling of Judge Munby that the social workers had acted illegally - some might say wrecklessly - and that nothing he had seen in the evidence indicated that 'G' was a threat to her child.
And it is fair enough to point out that the hospital staff were in the wrong to allow the child to be taken, but for some reason you appear incapable of criticising the social workers involved for attempting to remove the child without legal authority.
I received an email from Radio 4's Today programme at about 3.50pm on Friday 1 Februay asking me to get in touch re the above case. I rang them at about 5.30pm after I noticed the email and was asked my views on the case and whether I would be willing to be recorded for the programme the next day. I said that I would and was asked questions about the view that babies were being taken to fill a quota. I said that where I had worked that this definately wasn't the case but how could I know - who had done any research to know whether they were or weren't?
They of course didn't ring me back. Instead they had Ian Johnston from BASW versus Sarah Harman [who has been fighting for the opening of the family court] and really had a pointless discussion. Ian rightly said that social workers wouldn't do such a thing and Sarah disagreed. But where did it get anyone?
I met Peter Horrocks, the head of BBC News, when I attended a media academics course and he agreed to meet with some social workers. We will never oust out the bad social workers until we can understand the media more because good social workers will be too scared to speak out.
The media folk that I have come across - which is quite a few over the last year - really don't know what information they want from us and aren't frightening at all. If anything, most are frustrated or bewildered. May be someday I'll write about them!
Social workers and ministers say they cannot comment on individual cases. So here are four "general questions” that they can, and should, answer:
1:-Why are parents who lose their children in the family courts legally gagged to stop them protesting?
2:-Why can family courts send around 200 parents a year to prison secretly with no public hearing?
3:-Why are hundreds of children and newborn babies unnecessarily taken every year for "forced adoption" because social workers and their hired “experts” predict (using a crystal ball?) they might be at risk of neglect or -that old social services standby - emotional abuse?
4:-Why can hardened criminals avoid "establishment judges" by demanding trial by jury, when parents risking losing their children for life are denied this option?
Ian Josephs
Social workers and "Ministers" say they cannot comment on individual cases;so here are four "general questions” that they can and should answer.
1:-Why are parents who lose their children in the family Courts legally gagged to stop them protesting?
2:-Why can family courts send around 200 parents a year to prison secretly with no public hearing?(Harriet Harman's answer to a parliamentary question)
3:-Why are hundreds of children and newborn babies unnecessarily taken every year for "forced adoption" because social workers and their hired “experts” predict (using a crystal ball?) they might be at "risk"of neglect or that old "SS standby" emotional abuse?
4:-Why can hardened criminals avoid "establishment judges" by demanding trial by jury,when parents risking losing their children for life are denied this option?
I saw an ex-care leaver, single mother who was seriously abused in care. She went to her GP to request support going through her files that proved she had been abused in care.
The temporary GP who had never met the mum before or looked at her records, without consent broke patient confidentiality and contacted social services and told them the mum had been in care and been abused and was a possible danger to her children.
She is in fact a good mum. What transpired from that GP's actions onwards was a catalogue of serious failures by the local social services department. They tried to take her two young children because she asked for support.
This sort of story doesn't make people trust social services or their GPs. No wonder fewer and fewer people are asking for support. This is not the way forward.
Children are often worse off in care than ever before and are abused in the care system so regularly that they leave care in a mess. No one seems to be addressing that children in care are getting such poor treatment.
Taking a child away and putting them in a care system that already fails 60,000 children is taking a child out of the frying pan and throwing them into the fire. Putting them into an already failing care system is creating more unhappy children who go on to be adults with problems.
We need to keep children out of the care system where possible and give low-income, vunerable parents and care leavers the support they need to keep children out of care.
What is ironic is the fact social workers in many counties are now outside supermarkets in droves trying to force poor mothers to put their children into child care. These mothers are being targeted by social workers and asked their income in front of passers by.
I thought we needed more social workers? And i was under the assumption that social services were underfunded. Why are they wasting funds and tax payers' money on sending social workers around supermarkets when that is not part of their job? No wonder children are being murdered.
The government seems to be misusing social services and already-stretched social workers for all the wrong reasons.
Brian Douieb is wrong. His 'blind' reliance on the fact that social workers (and implicitly their legal advisers and managers) can do no wrong probably does more to alienate the general public than anything else.
His comments are incorrect and he fails to understand the legal processes. The matter went to a judge for an immediate specific issue concerning the case (ie the wrongful removal of the baby from its mother) to be resolved prior to it then being dealt with in the more 'usual' manner. It now appears that the whole issue is back 'on course'. How much damage the chain of events caused can be resolved in another issue.
Can I just point out that there is no such thing as a 'Police Protection Order' as mentioned by 'drax'. Even the solicitor interviewed on Radio 4 used this phrase and was then declared 'correct' by a senior representative of the Association of Directors of Children's Services. No wonder we are in this mess if ignorance or sloppy and inaccurate use of crucial terminology extends so high and so far through the various professional structures.
There is the 'power' of Police Protection (section 46 of the Children Act 1989) which only requires the decision of an individual police officer present at a scene where there is a likelihood or actuality of significant harm in a case, and where using their power is the best route to protecting the child at that time.
No court involvement is required but this power should not be assumed to be a shortcut to securing a child by social workers - they cannot instruct a police officer to exercise this power; it is solely the decision of the officer concerned.
Ian Josephs said: "What is ironic is the fact social workers in many counties are now outside supermarkets in droves trying to force poor mothers to put their children into child care."
Where is your evidence for this? I have never read such nonsense in my life!
What is so surprising about this case is that no one is asking why this happened.
How many people are involved in such a decision? And why didn't one of them say "this is the wrong way to do this"?
It actually implies habitual poor practice from social worker to service manager and raises questions about how well looked after children are supported when it's time to leave. But then nobody is asking that question either...
Lauren Revans states that the removal of the newborn baby from his 18 year old mother was 'undoubtedly an example of poor practice'. How does she know that? Does she know exactly what happened or, like most people, does she only know what has been reported by the media.
Similarly, Philip Measures questions the 'birth plan' (his quotes, not mine). Does he know that the birth plan was not properly drawn up, or that the mother was not fully involved, or that she did not have legal representation throughout the process?
And Drax, do you absolutely know that the professionals acted outside the law?
Judge Munby actually said 'on the face of it...' which seems to imply that even he was suggesting there may be other factors involved.
I have 30 years' experience as a social worker in child protection and in mental health, and I am passionate about anti-oppressive practice. What really saddens me in this case is the alacrity with which professional colleagues, including contributors to Community Care (who to paraphrase Judge Munby, should know better) have been ready to accept everything they read or hear in the media.
And one further point; I must support Martin Fletcher when he rightly points out that there is no such thing as a Police Protection Order, only the power of a police constable to take a child into police protection (S. 46(2) Children Act 1989).
If Philip Measures and others insist on criticising the social workers in this case for not understanding the law, they should at least ensure that they know the law themselves.
What seems to be the annoyance of the general public is the fact the mother was in care; a child brought up by the state. Now, for us, this leads to the question: is the state a really good parent if we have to remove new born babies from their mothers who have been brought up by the state?
For any person with a mental health issue then surely removing the baby will make matters worse?
I'm trying to look at this from all sides. Yes, mistakes were made. But the actions afterwards need questioning too. We hope the questions will be answered before it's too late.
Jerry Lonsdale
Just a thought for Ian Josephs M.A.(Oxon). Would he not agree that people who are truly members of a professional caste do not need to announce the fact in almost every sentence?
I invite him to look at this post and then at the comments that it has elicited. Look at the number of times the words "profession" and "professional" comes up.
Does he not agree that this could be taken as the mark of a group of people who are pathetically anxious to attain a status that isn't really theirs and never will be?
Oh dear! For the benefit of those who have sought to criticise me, the fact that compensation has now been agreed for the mother and with the council clearly admitting its shortcomings, it was CLEAR that all had not been done properly.
It is not so much a case of those of us accepting without question what the media says, but those of us with knowledge and many years of experience wanting to see better and safer practice with safeguards for children and young people - but not at the expense of parents being treated improperly, unfairly and unprofessionally.
Also, in respect of 'Police Protection Orders', these are usually granted at Inspector level and not by constables. Often, however, they are not accompanied by any acceptable level of paperwork given their immense importance and the 'train' of events which they often result in. In this case, however, this is academic as one was never granted.
This baby is in the interim care of the local authority and, no doubt, processes and procedures will now be followed to the letter.
What I find most disturbing about this case is the judge seems to only be worried about the lack of the court order and not the wrong removal of the baby. This new born has been snatched then made to feel safe by a brief return and then snatched again.
The unrepairable trauma damage that has already occured to this new born baby is exessive abuse by the authorities. If they were trying to help and really thought the baby needed monitoring they would have kept mother and baby together in hospital until baby unit were organised. While gently showing mother how to look after the baby.
This baby could develope all sorts of problems throughout life from the abuse of being torn away from the natural safety of it's mother.