The next Victoria Climbie?

Child protection services are going to be making the wrong sort of headlines over the coming days following the conclusion of the "Baby P" trial at the Old Bailey in London today.

The basic facts are there:

• Three people have been convicted of causing or allowing the death of the 17-month-old Baby P, including his mother and step-father.
• Baby P was on Haringey's child protection register at the time.
• He was seen, it is claimed, 60 times by health and social services staff during the eight-month period during which he was abused.

The Victoria Climbie Foundation's head, Mor Dioum, has been quoted as saying this case is worse than Victoria's and called for a public inquiry.

Children's services leaders - one of whom, it seems likely, will face the John Humphrys treatment on the Today programme tomorrow - have said whatever failings that have taken place in this case are not symptomatic of a "broken child protection system".

Maggie Atkinson, president of the Association of Directors of Children's Services, has said: "This work is complex and difficult and sadly we cannot eliminate risk or the miscalculation or risk. This case illustrates this and shows that we must work to ensure the highest standards of service in every case...Sadly there will be those who will continue to kill and seriously harm children. Not every tragedy can be prevented but we must continue to strive to do so - we owe this child and those who loved him that much."

History suggests that this kind of message doesn't tend to get much of a hearing at times like these, but we will see.

 

• Filed under: child protection register, ADCS, Maggie Atkinson, Victoria Climbie

In a sense this quite literally is the next Victoria Climbié as the government has invited Lord Laming to carry out a review of progress since his landmark review, which reported almost six years ago.

 

• Filed under: Victoria Climbié

Why is this guy being put in charge again when he has caused an unworkable system.

I invited him to come to Stafford to ' Believe in me' and he refused becaused Stafford was too far to come.

I wrote to him 6 months after the Laming Report with some suggestions and he replied that he was retired and rather out of date

So why is he being used yet again. How can he be independent??

Please Community care ask these questions

I have asked two MP's to ask the same in parliament and hope that they do.

" Maggie Atkinson, president of the Association of Directors of Children's Services, has said: "This work is complex and difficult and sadly we cannot eliminate risk or the miscalculation or risk. This case illustrates this and shows that we must work to ensure the highest standards of service in every case...Sadly there will be those who will continue to kill and seriously harm children. Not every tragedy can be prevented but we must continue to strive to do so - we owe this child and those who loved him that much." "

 I would have thought it was highly preventable in this case at 60 visits over an eight month period. I don't care if the child was encased in chocolate you would have to be totally incompetent to miss the injuries this baby sustained over that period of time.

 Two social workers and a lawyer have been given warnings. Not good enough i'm afraid. The doctor at the hospital has been sacked, a slightly better outcome, but all involved should have been struck off the rgisters for medical and social care.

This case is not like Victoria Climbies in respect of she was hidden away from the social services department, they couldn't get near her, this child was being monitored and he was on the at risk register, his mother was on a 'parenting' course, why wasn't the boyfriend put on a parenting course? maybe his nature would have come across.

The first head that should roll should be berverly hughes for having social services chasing their tails with s7 reports and endless useless paperwork instead of doing their jobs properly and protecting the children who really need it. Monitoring every child is unattainable yet the government seems to think it's a 'great' idea.

 

 

 justme

Well said and I would like to echo your sentiments. I would also add that I think the Laming Inquiry totally failed to address the systemic problems inherent in modern social work, e.g., the sheer scale of the bureaucratic task which, incidentally, increased following the Inquiry!

 

Schroder's Cat

You make harsh pronouncements against professionals who have to make decisions that you, judging by your remarks, have never had to make. In fact, no one is spared your righteous indictment except, ironically, the people who actually killed the child. I envy you your self assuredness, it must be a real balm at a time like this.

 

Here are measured responses from some 'experts' and I would single out Tim Loughton's and Eileen Munro's comments as being particularly insightful.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/11/baby-p-child-protection

 

I work in child protection and have sleepless nights over some of my cases where I know my instincts are right and parents are lying to me.  I know they are seeing their violent partner.  i know they are not feeding that child enough.  I know they are hiding things.  Hoe do I prove it??  lord laming never addressed that.  ICS brought in to make life easier?  I don't think so.  I now have more paperowrk and the same work load.  I hold core groups, I ask if health visitors, education, probation, housing have concerns.  They probably think the same as me but how do they prove it??  What if I get this wrong?  Will a child be injured?  Will a child die?  Will I remove a child that should stay?  What if I'm wrong?

Case conferences, the GP won't attend, the consultant won't attend, other agencies send their apologies.  Professionals states after conference "Ididn't like to say in there but........"

 Safeguarding children is the responsibility of everyone.  I fully recognise i might get something wrong but it won't be from lack of trying.  Child protection is nerve racking and the day i don't feel like that is the day I will stop practising.  The adults who kill are to blame.

 Please Lord Laming get it right and help us to get it right.  ICS was not the answer.  Children's Trusts weren't enough they didn't include health, police, housing.

 My blessings to baby P.

When I read about this tragedy, I was saddened by it and was questioning, how did this happen?

 As a practising child protection social worker- i spend every working day trying to protect children and promote their wellbeing but like others, i struggle with all the paperwork, targets etc etc which keep me at my desk all day when i  should be out seeing the children- Lord Laming needs to take a good look at what his recommendations did last time- they did not aid our work or protect children any better- they added another level of beuracaey.

 

Well said L38.

Social workers around the country will be echoing the words, at least in their thoughts, "There but for the grace of God ......".

I recall seeing an old cartoon in circulation many years ago, I believe it originated in the Association of Australian SWs: picture one was a large group of people with the caption something like "we are society and we turned our heads when that child was being killed", small group of people made up of police, teachers and social workers with the caption "that child died and we are totally to blame", third picture of one large man with the caption "I killed the child but it wasn't my fault, I'm not to blame"

It was utterly predictable that there would be another high profile tragedy. Social Care seems impotent to fight back against the ever-increasing obsession with computers and paperwork - the former was supposed to reduce the latter! - what a joke. The time that social workers can actually spend in direct contact with children and families is probably less than a aday a week - the rest is spent in front of computer screens completing endless ICS Forms which are neither worker not user-friendly and their value has to be questioned in their current formats.

It is a tragedy that we lose so many highly-skilled and experienced staff into management - we need career-grade social workers who can earn the equivalent of what managers earn. We need to re-look at the medical model which we have for too long rubbished - that would retain highly skilled practitioners in practice.

As a Team Manager / Service Manager I would carry out some joint visits with workers - how many managers are doing this now and on a regular basis? Senior managers need to be clear and EVIDENCE that practitioners are carrying out their work effectively and with appropriate guidance and support (and, of course, training).

We need to also recognise the value of multi / inter-disciplinary working and all disciplines need to communicate better with each other and be open to constructive questioning / challenge.

We especially need to go back to a more neighbourhood / locality-based system of working. We need to go back to direct-access Family Centres. We need neighbourhood workers - where have they all gone? We need Hospital Paediatric social workers based within hospitals - and where have they all gone? We need Health Visitors who have more time to make home visits and 'chase up' non clinic / GP / hospital attendances and have sufficient time to spend with mums and dads who they have concerns about.

We need to concentrate long and hard on areas of multi deprivation and ensure that we have joined-up services which are easily and conveniently accessible to local residents,

Quite simply we have got to re-connect with the very society we are there to serve and win their trust and confidence.

There also has to be personal and professional accountability - someone (and more than one person) appears to have severely failed 'Baby P' - written and verbal warnings alone will not restore public confidence. If resignations from the BBC occurred over what is by comparison trivial in respect of Russell Brand and Johnathan Ross - ought not we to see at least that within the caring professions in this Case? - and perhaps it ought to be from Government first and foremost for allowing Social Care to become so demoralised and bureaucratic - we can tick Performance Indicator boxes (PI's) but it is the QUALITY and EFFECTIVENESS of child protection / child care that really matters.

 I hate ICS with a passion- I just write any old crap, does it not know that I dont want a tick box thank you very much Its so Crap---------- does anyone read what you write? I want some one to do my admin please.  I want time to address my workload. I want a group to support the sexually abused and those who protect children and need a broader understanding of the issues. I need Psychologist et al  to undertake theraputic work with children and their parents. I need time to discuss and speak with people.

 I need a Family Support Worker who can help me and the children and families  and tackle some of the issues with parents/ carers. I dont want ICS you can stick it where the sun don't shine.

 

I hate ICS-  HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT................................................................

 

Ok rant over.....................

 

JULIE

• Filed under: ICS

Grinch, seriously, get over yourself, if you think slaping two social workers and a lawyer on the wrists and saying 'don't do it again' is enough then maybe you are in the wrong job my friend, a child should be able to depend on their parent/ s for protection when that fails then there is a whole task force to step in and prevent the unthinkable happening, yes, sometimes it fails, sometimes the child is hidden away, but come on 60 visits in 8 months and they couldn't quite put their finger on a problem? I certainly do not want those two out there 'protecting' any more children and if a Dr can not spot this level of child abuse (two days before death) and a broken back to boot she has no business being anywhere near patients, would you want her in the A & E if your child was sick. I know I wouldn't.

So yes, shoot me, I want these people gone, I want to know when a child is being abused there are people who can and will do the job of protecting them. I want an end to the endless 'chase your tail around a database and paperwork' when you should be out there where it matters protecting children like baby P and Victoria. I want managers to stop being yes men to the government think tanks who 'brainstorm' a new 'this' and' that ' every week and stand up for the rights of their staff, and the rights of children to have this job preformed correctly.

As for the so called 'parents' to that poor baby, I think it goes without saying what any decent person in this country would like to see happen to them, I am not a bleedin' heart liberal, I think these animals should be put into general population in the prison and after a few years of that, if they survive, hey I will gladly finish the job by whatever means the general populus approved of.

As for not doing your job, I have already publically stated I am not a social worker, admin know what I do and whom I do it for, I am more than willing to enlighten you in a PM if you require. Could I do your job, hell no, just reading what Victoria went through made me want to 'inflict harm' (is the nicest way to put it) on her 'carers' and faced with the situation I probably would, does that mean I don't want the best out there protecting the children? No. Should people close ranks when someone screws up this badly? Err, No.

So please spare me the self righteous indignation of closing ranks and 'attacking' the outsider, at least four people screwed this up and it ended very badly, should they keep their jobs? I think not.

 

How on earth did the mother ,the boyfriend and the lodger get found not guilty ? It saddens me that not only did this child suffer cruelty from the people who are supposed to love him and protect him but he was also failed by those paid to protect him. What about the childminder who had him 4days a week and the family member who had been brought in to help out? The neighbours? Cousins, aunties ,uncles, the GP ? What kind of a society are we living in? Very few children live in isolation from the rest of the community ........even without the involvement of professionals someone somewhere knew this was happening.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

It was suggested this morning on The Today programme [click on this to listen] that social workers are too tied up with paperwork to have the time to make quality decisions, and more importantly, quality supervision that helps them question their assumptions about families, etc. Is this true?

Well here we go again and despite the number of other professionals involved in the case the Social Workers are getting mentioned in every news or newspaper quote. In my view it is time Social Work was removed from the initial Child Protection investigation stage and it should be a Police matter alongside domestic and common assualts.When that is done we get involved.We do go in and try to meet everyones needs and forget that we are doing Child Protection not family therapy.We are a laughing stock and need to reflect on how we are viewed.Also the profession has over the years adopted a victim mentality.No resources,my boss is a buly,too many cases et al.Get real,we work in the Public services and it the same for everyone.We need to accept we are not good at seeing the woods for the trees and we are prone to letting things go or slide in relation to clients.Adopt the Joe Public view of what is acceptable and take a common sense approach to dealing with difficult individuals and challenge their behaviour.I qualified in the 90s and despite regulation we are worse now than then.We have Social workers with little past life experience throw in to caretake difficult cases.Most people i qualified with had been seconded to courses from council Social Work depts where they had been working in residentail or fieldwork in unqualified S/W jobs.We had the basic awareness when people were trying it on and the confidence to challenge them.We had practice teachers and tutors who had done or were doing the job and understood the pressures.A recent student of mine has recently got a job as a senior lecturer in social work after being qualified for 5 years! Come on now is that experienced? I am sure people will remember the old level three process where once you had been qualified more than 2 years you went up the scale based on a case study and interview.Teams consisted of newly qualified,level 3 staff and the old and bold who had seen it all.Now we class someone with two years experience as senior. So get real and the so called professionlism has reduced us to form filling,client avoiding,whinging moaners who believe we are so hard do by.Almost the same as teachers in my opinion!

I can't help but think that there's something fundamentally wrong here with social work and society. This case surely once and for all illustrates the inability to successfully predict likelihood of an adult causing a child's death. This point has been continually made time and time again. And yet the belief still persists among the general public that this can be done and, when it isn't, that someone is at fault - cue the usual media hue and cry and actions (enter Laming) to assuage the electorate to weave a web of causation that is easy to do in hindight but impossible at the time.

The fact is that parents have the power to withold the truth and deceive workers and workers can be very powerless in the face of skilful and cunning deception. A social worker cannot take a child to the bathroom during a visit and wash chocolate from a child's body to check for bruises. Equally, a social worker cannot remove a child when it is told by its legal department that this would be challenged, and be successful, in a court of law - it appears that this was the advice of Haringey Council's legal department.  To do so would be to surely risk suspension and possible deregistration from the GSCC register - social workers are people who also need to make a living and survive in this world.

When the police suspect someone is engaging in criminal activity, they have the power to instigate covert bugging (video cameras etc...) to gather evidence, even after a victim has died (e.g. Stephen Lawrence). Why can't similar action be taken where there is overwhelming anecdotal evidence that abuse is occurring to a vulnerable child? Surely prevention of death of a child is a laudable motive for any civilised society so to take such action to prevent such a tragedy occurring would be acceptable, I feel, by the majority of people in that society. Surely this type of evidence would also allow thresholds of removal to be met. Now I know that social workers will be agog at this suggestion and that such a move would be considered  'oppressive'. It's the same contingent that bemoan the use of ID cards (and yet probably the same contingent who join the chorus of disapproval when tragedies such as Baby P occur). However, come on, if there's nothing to hide then have you really been violated? And if a child death was prevented, wasn't this worthwhile?

The problem with social work (ers) is that it (they) all too readily revert to assertions of their value base in desperate attempts to assert their uniqueness and justify their position - this is often an insufficient response to the question - "what do social worker's do?" . This is a question the profession has never coped very well with but it one that needs to answered if it is going to 'survive'. Social work values tell us to be 'non-judgmental' and it is precisely this sort of message which gets in the way of making tough decisions. It is almost as if social workers are conflict-averse - I see it all the time. I was once asked...

"I keep hearing that social workers have to be anti-oppressive...what's wrong with a bit of oppression?"....and infact I think they had a point.

Unless we as a society are prepared to accept an increased gaze into our home lives, and compromise some privacy, then these tragedies will continue to happen and this needs to be understood by the people who call for blame and that 'something should be done'.

 

The report that followed the tragedy said that it had been a complex case with complex issues, but that no individual, apart from the peadatrician could be held accountable for any one thing. The legal department had concluded just one week before the death that the threshold for instituting proceedings hadn't been reached, so it seems that in terms of policy and procedure, the social wortkers involved had done all that they could, so, why have they been issued with written warnings? Looks like  an appaling case of scapegoating to me. Social workers can do all that is required of them, but when something goes wrong, it always their fault.............not the managers, not the men in suits who dream up policies, not the auditors who insist that performance management provides the keys to the oracle, no, it is always the social worker, the poor sod at the sharp end, who gets the blame. 

 

Yes it's true. Paperwork and endless documentation take up most of our work week and somewhere within that we are to fit in all the meetings, phone calls, emails, court, and visits to support and protect a child.  There are many, many posts throughout this site complaining about the amount of repeated documentation that goes into a child protection case never mind the focus on ticking boxes within timescales and the lovely ICS concept.  Other countries manage to protect their children without this expectation.  Why can't we do this here?  With this focus, no wonder children are not at the centre.  Lord Laming in one of his many interviews stated that the child had to be the focus and the client of the social worker, but we are told time and time again to go back and work with the family despite knowing, but not having the proof, that a child is at risk.

With respect to the 2 social workers and the lawyer....do we know what exactly they where written up for???  Do we know that it would have made a difference.  A jury couldn't even make a decision of at least manslaughter even with all of the evidence in front of them and it is now known how much collusion and deception was happening not only within the family but also by the very 'friends' of the family that agreed to help support keeping baby P in his home.  Why didn't they speak up?  It is now known that the family friend who helped care for baby P was aware of the 'boyfriend' being in the home.  Where was she in all of this.  Why is she not answering to her collusion with the mother?  We are expected to bring together a support network so that children can remain in the home (because good guidance states that this is the best place for a child) but when the support network also colludes......then what.

 

 who should be blamed over this? The Daily Mail, predictably, runs the headline today "Once again, no-one's to blame" - its story says: "not a single social worker will lose their job over the blunders" - is this fair? should heads roll?

Well said Pete,it appears the written warning was for not updating the IT system and following the correct CP procedures,so what do we as Social Workers do about it?

I'd like to move away from 'blame' to 'responsibility'. Another child has died while being 'known' to social services. Baby P will not have been the only child  to have done so since the Climbie Inquiry. Each subsequent Serious Case Review will have listed ' lessons learned'. What appears to be the most significant lesson learned from inquirys and SCR's is that a) lessons are not learned' and b) If lessons are learned  obstacles appear to exist which prevent these lessons being applyed to practice. Not having examied the full report of the SCR into the death of Baby P perhaps some of my following comments will be found to be unjustified;  However is it time to consider whether those charged with the protection of children should be separated from those governing  Placement budgets and resources? Is it possible that some of the decisions made relating to the care and protection of Baby P may have been influenced by resource limitation? There is likely to be focus on individual practitioners as well as system failure as a result of Baby P's death. Robust systems to protect children have been in place for many years. These systems however have always remained dependent on individuals applying them correctly and efficiently. Hopefully any inquiry which follows will be able to identify the obstacles which have prevented individuals from following the clear, robust procedures which should by now be in place. One would hope that there may be an examiniation of the recruiting and training mechanisms involved within the childcare workforce and other partner agencies. With reference to social work training I would argue that one concerning obstacle or indeed risk has evolved. With increased scrutiny into the eligibility of service users to receive servicies has come case work which is far more complex and critical than previously. Has social work training evolved along with the increased complexity of the work to be undertaken. If not will newly qualified (or probationary) social workers be equipped with the skills, knowledge and experience to manage such case work? If not what is the ongoing implication for vulnerable clients and children at risk of abuse and in need of protection. There wil no doubt be several processes which have resulted in the failure to protect the life of Baby P. Alas processes to not have names or faces.

 

I too am a practicing social worker. I have just come out of a team meeting where 90% of the agenda was about paperwork, specifically gathering statistics, one of which was to spend a week recording 'avoidable contacts'.  as I heard on the radio this morning regarding Baby P, there was a beautiful paper trail but still a dead child at the end of it. 

Involvement of legal team

I was surprised at the precedence attached to the intervention of the local authority's solicitors, who are blamed in the serious case review for delaying the legal planning meeting and subsequent advice on thresholds.

When a child is on the at-risk register, why should social workers, who are supposed to be experts in the law governing their chosen field of practice, have to wait for a verdict from the legal department on such a crucial decision regarding a child's welfare? Surely social workers should no longer have to defer to so-called legal experts, particularly when they are increasingly encouraged to represent their local authority in family courts.

Isn't this another layer of bureaucracy that undermines local authorities' capacity to protect children?

Does anyone else have insights into how referrals to lawyers work in practice where care proceedings are concerned?

• Filed under: Haringey, Baby P

Just to update you, children's secretary Ed Balls has ordered an urgent multi-agency inspection of safeguarding in Haringey by Ofsted, the Healthcare Commission and the police inspectorate.

He wants them to submit their first report to him by 1 December.

He and children's minister Bev Hughes read the full serious case review - not just the executive summary - this morning and concluded that:-

• Each agency had singly and collectively failed to adhere to the procedures for managing child protection cases, as set out in Working together to safeguard children.
• There was evidence of poor quality practice, management and supervision of staff in all agencies.
• Health professionals appeared to have failed to follow appropriate procedures where there was evidence of a child having suffered non-accidental injuries.
• There was inappropriate use of family friends as temporary carers for Baby P.

 

• Filed under: Haringey, Baby P, Ed Balls

It is the laissez faire approach that is at fault followed by autocracy.

Look how much time and effort is spent on care proceedings cases and often of much older children whose parents asked for help didn't get it and get condemned when things fall apart.

If we had a social worker in every school in the country working with the over 5's then the others could work closely with health visitors.

How come the health visitor vistied so infrequently?

What happened to the core groups?

Doesn't a medic think that they should examine a child?

But then going by my own experience of hospital with my now 16 year old son who arrive there nearly 2 years ago with an unexplained fit and has had 5 more since then. during the time we have been going there they have lost his notes twice and asked me whether he was on medication when it was prescribed by the consultant himself.

So much time is consumed with teenagers that it is not surprising that events like this happen to little ones.

If the over 5's are supported/ monitored in school where they can be seen discretely most of the year then surely it is a much better and effective use of resources.

I also agree that obvious abuse should be dealt with by the police.

The boss of Haringey was an ex Teacher not social worker does this have an effect I wonder? How many other children's services boss is an ex teacher?

Right - now let's look calmly and objectively at what we are up against - 'Working Together to Safeguard Children' is a 256 - yes, 256 page document - hardly user-friendly and yet can be used against social workers if they have not followed it. On Tuesday 28 January 2003 the Secretary of State, Alan Milburn, in a Statement to the House of Commons said as follows:

'Within the next 3 months I intend to secure the replacement of existing local guidance with new, shorter, clearer guidance which will reach everyone of the 1 million professional staff dealing with the safeguarding of Children. I also intend to simplify the wider range of Children Act guidance. It currently runs to 1,500 pages. It covers 15 volunmes. Some of it is out of date. Our intention is to reduce it by 90%. To make it available in a single volume and to update it on a regular basis.

Am I missing something here - where is this shorter, clearer Guidance?

How can we ensure that social workers feel confident that they have received adquate training? How can we ensure that they receive adequate support? How can we retain the most experienced within practice? How do we cope with many Managers having less 'hands-on' experience than the workers?

We MUST heed the concerns expressed around ICS (Integrated Childrens System) and the PLO (Public Law Outline) - by putting additional prerssures on social workers to evidence-gather from the very start of their involvements with families we place them under pressure and make it clear that social work IS adversarial. The immense pressures to 'write it up' are, quite rightly identified, as detracting from the exercise of social workers professional judgements.

As a social worker of 36 years experience it is that very experience that I draw on - you can not 'buy' that experience and we need to have in place good mentoring schemes whereby the more experienced of us can pass on those precious skills.

We need 'safe' workplaces with Managers who understand and are there face-to-face to help, encourage, monitor, mentor, protect, educate and nurture less experienced staff. To see so many managers obsessed with meeting Performance Indicators (PI's) at the expense of quality / effectiveness / safety of the work being carried out is tragic. Initial & Core Assessmnets may well be at the higher levels but who is ensuring their high quality?

The burden of legislation also needs to be compressed / unified into a simpler format for workers.

When I commenced ny social work career I was out in the community for many times longer than workers can now be - all was not perfect but at the very least I was having significant direct contact with children and families and able to better get to know and understand what was going on. We need higher levels of highly skilled family support services if we are going to 'tie' social workers down to sitting in front of computers and being more 'Care Managers' than practitioners.

But, perhaps most of all we need to re-discover the 'soul' of social work. What is all about really? What has happened to 'the Casework relationship'? Is the balance right between support and intervention? Are the recent huge increases in legal costs in even instituting Care Proceedings acting as a deterrant to bringing them? Are Caseloads reasonable - does your employer have a Caseload Weighting Scheme in operation (despite the limitations of such schemes)?

Enough for now!

one wonders how often the social workers concerned tried their best to make sure the child remained with the 'birth mother'.

I have been cleaning out old e mails and came across this that I posted in the practice forum only days ago on saturday before hearing about baby P.  (Please note that I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, I do not wish to sound smug etc).  What was implemented after Victoria's death has failed too many children.  Get us from behind the desk. 

***************************************************************************************

 Re: How do you make ICS generated assessments accessible to service users?

 

 

 

There has been so much said on this thread that ties in with comments on other threads.  Clearly ICS has reduced the amount of time social workers are able to spend actually with clients.

As Rupert says, the old days might have had it's faults but at least social workers were able to get out with clients.  There was also a lot to be said for 'working through the ranks', which appears now to have been all but done away with.  The minimum age to be a social worker is, I believe, 21.  No disrespect to the younger social work students who are genuinely working hard to enter a profession of their choice, but school, college, university, absuing parents.  Not a lot of life experience to draw on.  Scary.

But age is no guarantee either.  It doesn't matter how many degrees and PQ awards someone has, it doesn't matter how many ICS entries are made and forms filled in, it doesn't matter how many meetings are held, or the advice of legal departments, if social workers (and police, doctors, health visitors, teachers, etc) don't have the experience of dealing with lies, conflict and aggression, don't have the confidence in the strength of their managers' support, are not able to spend time, real time, with the families with whom they are supposed to be working (in order to 'get under the skin' of what is going on), and have to make criteria based decisions, then 'mistakes' will continue.  All the 'training' and 'procedures' in the world can't replace good quality experience.

Thank you for your views on the current arrangements within the SS Dept.

I will never run down all Social Workers as I worked and had a superb working relationship with around 4-5 CPU SS workers.  They were everything I believed SS stood for "The Child" I was around a year later unfortunatley handed over to the "Long Term Family Team" and a very young, arrogant SW who was so full of herself, I had to laugh.  I earned my grey hair by having 3 children and 2 grandchildren. It however was one of those times when as a human being one must stand up to the plate and help. I did so. Within 3 months this ONE SW had me back at court and the child taken into FC with another family within 9 months.  I await further Legalities due to fabricated accusations. This took all of around 6-7 visits to my home.

My point which is in agreement with yours in part is - When did Social Care all of a sudden become Child Protection?  Id obviously passed all relevant tests etc, worked very well with the SW's Child Protection Unit and the child for over a year. All to be runied due to one silly girl's ego trip?  She has set that already abused child back months if not longer. The person that has been hurt the most is the child.  I still cannot get my head around it.

Baby P - Please god give him a name and not be remembered as Baby P

I am sorry but there are so many mistakes een made yet again, it is totally unacceptable and I think you will find to the whole of the UK.  Im sorry as I did not catch the SW's spokesperson who was on with Denise Robertson GMTV but to listen to him brag about how many lessons had been learned since the Victoria Climbe case made me ill. Then to compound his ignorance by stating that their Dept had done their job by visiting 60 times, which equates to twice a week. Further to informing the British Public that the scras, wounds, ears almost hanging off, severe head wounds, a missing finger tip, could not be seen for chocolate?  How stupid and ignorant does this man think mothers are?  That poor soul could be painted black and you still could not miss such severe fatal wounds..  The Doctor then stated that she had not been infomed that he was on the CP List, as a (I take it) qualified doctor did she really have to be told this? Surely the facts spoke for themselves, sem-paralised, broken spine, ribs, finger etc etc etc. The Police advised SS's not to return this innocent baby back for even more torture by these animals. I am not accusing every SW in our country of being incompetent but please do not rush to the defence of those who clearly do not do their jobs correctly. If that SW (and I do believe she is being used as scapegoat) visited less than 4 days previous.  She could not have been within 6'' of this poor baby otherwise chocolate or not - She could not have missed those surely to god.

Im sure you all do a hard job (one I could not do) and I have by far good experiences but was accused of MSBP by an unqualified SW and lost my care. I am uncertain as to what a CP visit intails but I would presume she would check the baby surely?  Did she check from her car perhaps as there is no amount of chocolate could possibly cover that up.

I do not think this will be swept under the carpet by yet another fruitless enquiry. With the normal result "Lessons will be learned"

The UK public will demand the resignation of the Head of Social Services, The Team Leader, Every SW involved within the last 2-4 weeks of that poor babys life, Health Visitor, Doctor.  As they all played a part in his death.

Is there anyone in this board that would have missed injuries such as he died over?  I hope to god not.  I think that the CPU worked great in their allocated field.  The Story Teller,  SW I kid you not should have been doing what she was trained for - Social Care.

You asked for input by the public and I apologise if I have offended any of you, but I will not apologise for my beliefs and standards.

 Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts.

Rest in peace baby P.  Your safe in Gods arms now.

 Well i thought my rambling early on may have been jumped on in a non oppressive manner of course! However there does seem a few people who remember working through the ranks and the better skill/experience mix in teams.I have worked across all client groups and my training was generic in practice so i feel we maybe missing that overall experience,

On the Today programme a chap was on who was an ex social worker who talked about the difficulty of the job and the personal dangers he faced by families who used indimidation.Also he stated Social Workers were easy to blame and no real mention of the hea;th staff or Police involved.Every newsclip i have seen or heard has mentioned Social Workers as a specific professional group involved in the case and no mention of the other agencies involved.

I felt the woman director from the council was at least trying to put this into some context and hundreds of children across the country are today are on the register being protected.Of course mistakes will have been made but we have a shared responsability for this and i am sick and tired of dammed if you do dammed if you dont mentality.

I now work outwith statutory work in a post working with Service Personal and their families within the Civil Service and recently felt an urge to return to adult services.Maybe i will think again 

All I know is if I hear the phrase 'Lessons will be learned' once more I am going to scream!

TC

Some of the people reading this forum were at the conference in Stafford.  Together with Sue White and Allan Norman I have been writing a critique of how the Laming reforms have made things worse.  I have also tabled an Early Day Motion which will come out something like this

"This House calls for an independent inquiry as to whether the Integrated Childrens System assists or hinders child protection and what the effects of the other changes introduced since the Laming report have been and for DCSF to reveal anonymously the national list of Serious Case Reviews for independent audit."

People wishing to have the ICS looked at need to find out the EDM number (it will be available next week and probably tomorrow) at

http://edmi.parliament.uk

The Sun's demonisation of individuals here is not right.  The systems for decisionmaking in child protection appear to be designed to come to the wrong conclusions. 

 

The central problem of this case is thetendency of bureaucracy to be counter intuitive and for professionals within that bureaucracy to believe that the structured confusion they adapt to is both human and humane.

It isn't.

Design and implementation of administration, monitoring of case work is based on a professional theory of 'mind' that does not consider real time and accruing issues for organisations that need dedicated community support (that itself is monitored.) over much longer budgeting periods.

It is no good to be able to 'fit' face to face substitutes into any case management template. Professionals know this, and like deceitful and manipulative people they often work with, adjust their responses to the template rather than the job they really want to do.

Professionals need genuiness of purpose and real time community involvement in local areas that is budgeted for and seen as essential community and professional development.

This is the burning issue, now, for all bureaucracies, especially medical, social work and health professionals and the police service: how do they begin to create a workable connection with the really disconnected parts of our innermost cities (and souls) within a technological infrastructure desinged for the most part by very young people who live in the perpetual, fragmented now of frustrated online desire?

Systems of bureacucratic management of social problems are designed within this kind of mindset and, instinctively, professionals react ambivalently to this technology. At the moment it's narcissistic, we need people designing systems for social work professionals of all kinds who have worked in social inclusion successfully across the world.

The 'older ' generation need to bite the bullet and get into their virtual and real neighbourhoods and reclaim the territory creatively and constructively: the unemployed, the housewives, the offenders, the retired are all restricted in their activities, restricted in being able to connect with the social problems around them becasue of this one dimensional bureaucracy and red tape.

If people felt their neighbourhoods: the empty properties, the shop units empty, the failing businesses around them were part of their neighbourhood and not just part of 'the market'...if government would give the green light to Job Centre Plus to pay unemplyed people, say £100 per week to choose a business or issue they want to help, give a structured account of what they want to do with that business or issue and a time scale, then you'd begin to make up the real gap in our society between the brutalised and the professional metricators and people would be able to help each other rather than just hate each other

We've compiled a very brief survey to gauge your opinion on the implications of the Baby P case. It will only take a moment to fill out (6 questions) and we'd appreciate your input. Just follow this link to fill in the survey.

Thanks 

Just to let you know of a few developments that have taken place today:-

• The GSCC has begun preliminary enquiries into the social workers involved in the case to see if there are any conduct implications here.
• And the local political situation is hotting up all the time - Lynne Featherstone, a local MP and a Liberal Democrat (the council is Labour-controlled but with a large Lib Dem opposition), has rejected the move - agreed by the council and the government - to bring Hampshire Council director John Coughlan in to support senior managers at Haringey in children's services. Her view on this was: "This is a stark admission that the top brass running children services in Haringey are not up to the job.  Our children's service cannot wait for these people to be mentored.  They must go." We should have some more on the local political situation later. 

 

• Filed under: Haringey, Baby P

Surely the GSCC should be looking into the conduct of the council lawyers who made the decision that the threshold wasn't met? Looking at the timeline the threshold was met earlier in the year.

There are conduct implications but only in the sense that no one had the temerity to put their heads above the parapet and ask to have recorded that the wrong decisions were being made. This proccess in similar to the one that would be used when undertaking a multi agency risk assessment and asking to have your dissent recorded when you felt that not enough was being done to cover risk.

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that the senior managers are not up to the job. I have met very few senior managers of late that are not obssessed with meeting KPI's. Where are the managers that will promote innovative thinking, genuine risk management rather than over reaction and are prepared to lead by example? 

It is a human tragedy that since Laming we have been overburdened by proccess and are warned about not meeting targets (I was recently warned that I would get a "level 3 notification" because I hadn't completed a LAC review report on time!! Time was I used to give a verbal overview at LAC reviews; particularly if the child involved was in a stable long term placement. IRONY:- The majority of my case load is heavier end CP; have you seen the length of an ICS LAC report? I could have lost a child if I spent the amount of time needed to complete all those bloody duplicated ICS forms. What happened to "Case Notes"?

Unfortunately us frontline professionals will become the whipping boys (or should that be people?) of the gutter press. It is time, that collectively, we stated what is wrong with our profession; we are supposed to "empower"; how can we when a lot of newly qualified Social Workers are the emobodiment of disempowerment in the sense that they allow themselves to be dictated to by controlling management? 

We are the only group of qualified professionals who allow themselves to be treated the way that we are. Can anyone imagine lawyers, accountants, enginners or doctors being slated in the way that we are? I think not.

One more thing: How many times are we going to hear the knowledgeless harp on about concentrating on the child? If you want to improve the lot of a child you sometimes actually have to work with the adults who are in charge of them to educate and inform! Do these fools think that we beleive what adults tell us? and are afraid to act when required? Coming from the "wrong side of the street" entry into social work I certainly know when I'm being skanked.

 

 

We are not experts in the Law in our chosen field, we have teams of legal advisors, paralegals and LA solicitors to refer to as the Law is THEIR chosen field an subsequenly THEIR field of expertise. WE are experts in analysis, observation and intuition. Unfortunaley we get overidden when our gut feeling tells us therre is something not quite right; we get told that we need to "evidence" our practice.

 

 

Incidentally there is a section regarding gut feeling and intuition when completing an ASSETT assessment when working with Young Offenders it is a shame that there is no equivalent in social care assessment frameworks. 

voltaire:

We are not experts in the Law in our chosen field, we have teams of legal advisors, paralegals and LA solicitors to refer to as the Law is THEIR chosen field an subsequenly THEIR field of expertise. WE are experts in analysis, observation and intuition. Unfortunaley we get overidden when our gut feeling tells us therre is something not quite right; we get told that we need to "evidence" our practice.

 

 

Incidentally there is a section regarding gut feeling and intuition when completing an ASSETT assessment when working with Young Offenders it is a shame that there is no equivalent in social care assessment frameworks. 

 

I am sorry, but feel like the naughty kid at the back of the classrooom saying 'boll''ks under my breath to sound like a cough.  No, Voltaire, you are meant to be an expert in this area of law... what is threshold criteria?

 The only people who can get enact and EPO without an order from a judge are the police or a social worker.  No evidence is required...just a 'gut' feeling so pull the other one. 

 As someone who has worked in child protection and education for the last 21 years...I know the law.. your admission that you don't is disturbing.  I have posted here before: The threshold criteria was never crossed in my family; but they chose to steal a 3 year old boy in the middle of the night.  Then they decided to 'twin track' him. 

Surely instead of going after the nice middle class people who will say ,'sure come in, have a look around, have a cup of tea, X why don't you show this nice social worker your room and all your toys' and the social worker thinks.. 'hh, I can earn a bonus off this kid' perhaps it should be focused on children like Baby P and the poor children stabbed in Manchester.

(And before someone gets offended or defensive, the judge worked out we were getting screwed by a racist, angry social worker.)  I have met many competent, intelligent, insightful social workers both due to this horrible incident and in my professional work. Maybe the gov't would have been much better spending their money on helping these three boys instead of the £600K on investigating a healthy normal family and ripping them apart only for the judge to say, 'mum and dad, go home and raise your family to the excellent standard you always have... and you ms. social worker...hang your head in shame'.

 

So your ignorance of the law is no defense.....

TC

 

 

 

I totally understand the difficulties that social workers have. We all know you have a difficult job to do and this is made more difficult by additional things to do such as paperwork.

My concerns really stem from personal experience and the experience I have from helping families from a legal perspective whilst challenging some of the decisions made by social workers in general;

1. In response to some of the discussions on here, if a child is on the CP register then yes someone from the local authority should be responsible if a child dies through any form of abuse.

2. I am really worried as to how any social worker was able to assess these parents positively when there was clearly a "blood splattered cot" on display.

Perhaps I am merely ignorant to such matters, however I am experienced legally in helping parents in private and public law and I am also a teacher who specialises in children with SEN needs, behavioural difficulties, learning difficulties etc. I have to this date not been able to get a positive parenting assessment from a social worker regarding an application that has been made to court for a certain child. Yet I am experienced in dealing with children emotionally, physically etc, I have enough money coming in to care for a child, my home is clean and tidy, I can assist children educationally and behaviourally, emotionally etc. I have a wide support network, and have no "previous" in terms of care proceedings.

I won't go into more detail, however this concerns an ISWreport not a report from the LA, and the ISW has not adhered to many of the codes of practices for sw's or independent expert witnesses.  I have discussed this issue before and received some very useful information and comments from some really great social workers on here.

 I can't help but think to myself how on earth did these parents get any sort of positive comments, when concerns have been raised about me based on nothing more than hearsay which has been made clear in the ISW report produced.

 I'm sorry if anyone is offended by this, but I do have to raise questions about how this can happen. I don't understand how someone like me can be deemed unsuitable to parent, but a child sleeping in a blood splattered cot is safe and sound.

voltaire:

We are not experts in the Law in our chosen field, we have teams of legal advisors, paralegals and LA solicitors to refer to as the Law is THEIR chosen field an subsequenly THEIR field of expertise. WE are experts in analysis, observation and intuition. Unfortunaley we get overidden when our gut feeling tells us therre is something not quite right; we get told that we need to "evidence" our practice.

Incidentally there is a section regarding gut feeling and intuition when completing an ASSETT assessment when working with Young Offenders it is a shame that there is no equivalent in social care assessment frameworks. 

Hi - I'm sorry but intuition I would have thought is the last thing that should be used when doing social care assessment frameworks. I am already concerned at the lack of evidence I have seen in various reports and now you suggest that intuition should be used in assessments?????

Time then to get our crystal balls out people.......