Please could anyone advise me about children's advocacy.

The situation is this, mother is my client, she has mental health problems, she has an independant advocate which we advised her about and put her in touch with. (as per our standard practice)

This woman's two children are currently with foster carers (who are both social workers in the area) on Interim Care Orders, I understand the Local Authority are seeking full care orders and that the children do not return to the mother's care. There is what appears to me to be very limited contact. (I don't know what the norm is).

The children are aged 13 and 11 and do not want to stay in foster care so keep returning to their mother who felt bad having them removed by social workers. The children allegedly say to the mother that nobody speaks to them or listens to what they have to say and that when social workers or Guardian visit they spend their time in another room talking to the foster carers. In fact the children alledgedly told their mother that on one visit the Guardian and foster carer had a beer together because they are old friends.

All of this pressure is having an effect on the mother's mental health, she has been very well for 6 months now and we would like to maintain this.

I spoke to my manager who suggested that I research some children's independent advocacy and pass the details to mum to pass to the children so that they had someone independent to help them articlate their views, so keeping mum out of the loop.

I did this, the children contacted a national service and by all accounts the advocate is very impressive, has quickly gained the children's trust and raised their issues with the social workers.

As a result all hell has broken loose, mum is being accused of manipulation, I am being accused of collusion and the children's team manager has contacted the advocacy service saying the children do not need an advocate and so cancelling the service. I understand, from the mother's advocate, that the children's advocacy service are so concerned that they have decided to carry on without funding.

I feel I have created enormous problems for mum who now faces having her contact cut to one hour a month instead of one hour a fortnight.

I spoke to my manager this morning and she suggested I post here and try to elicit some views and facts about children's advocacy before she takes any action.

So here I am!

Hi

I think this is a case of childrens rights and the children's wishes and feelings, and their right to be listened to.  From what you have said they appear to be 'gillick compitent'  (sp, its been a long day) and as such their wishes and feelings (along with their welbeing) is paramount. 

 Why not ask for a professionals meeting if the LAC review is to far off to disucus what would be in the best interests of the children.  If their current contact has been arranged via court, professionals/agencies have to have a very good reason to not comply and change the frequency.  As you know, if appropriate the local authority has a duty to promote contact. 

I hope this helps

Shellie

From what you've said it sounds like there's a huge risk here that what is really important will get lost in amongst procedures and arguments between people paid to help. I think that the starting point – and any arguments about what should happen – must be based on looking at the situation from a purely human perspective (not a procedural, social work one).

One of the reasons why many people are passionate about the independence of 'independent advocacy' organisations is that their 'service' (they may not call it that) can't be 'stopped' in the way you describe.

I do think that there is one important issue to watch out for in terms of advocacy – which is that you very much don't want to end up in a situation where there are two parties (mother and children) each supported by an advocate to argue against the other. This brings to mind a picture of a messy divorce or something equivalent – where the only people gaining are those paid to be there. Fortunately it doesn't sound like that's where you are going.

I don't know if it helps, but the Advocacy 2000 'Principles and Standards in Independent Advocacy' document deals with some relevant issues

(see: http://www.isja.org.uk/articles_18_A2KPS.html - also available as a complete pdf).

It doesn't work well to quote sections of this out of context and I'd recommend reading the document as a whole – and checking up on the more recent work by the 'Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance' and bodies local to you - but this document states that one of the 'outcomes' of advocacy activity is to 'add weight'.. ..

"Independent Advocacy organisations aim to add weight to a person's (or group's) ideas, hopes, ambitions and opinions to increase the amount of control they have over their life, and so that poor practice is challenged."

and

"..It is important that weight is added to these wishes, opinions, hopes and ambitions if people are dealing with systems that have power over them.."

The intention in this statement was to make it clear that the advocacy role isn't simply about making sure that a person's views are stated, but that they listened to and taken account of.

There is also a statement about tenacity and effectiveness:

"Those supporting advocates try to make sure [that] advocates act tenaciously, that is, with determination and persistence, and take the most effective course of action. In evaluating what courses of action are available, they take account of other principles in this document ..  and the limits listed .. .. They do not necessarily accept other restrictions which people try to place on them (for example, an advocate supporting someone to complain might be asked by other organisations to work within their official procedures, but they do not need to accept this restriction)."

The document also tried to deal with questions about the limits of what it is right to support someone with. One point that it makes is:

"Being on one side: those supporting advocates try to make sure [that] advocates act only on the side of the person .. .. [and they] limit this loyalty only where someone .. has substantial power over others who do not themselves have effective Independent Advocacy support; .. [or] through practical restrictions, for example, the time they have available or restrictions under the law; or because this is necessary to avoid serious harm to an individual or other people."

In terms of the accusation of 'collusion' you could use this statement to justify the involvement of an advocate for the children (because the mother has one and that isn't safe for the more vulnerable party).

HOWEVER, going back to my point about seeing this from a purely human point of view, surely what is needed (however we arrange it procedurally) is.. ..

Someone appropriate should be facilitating an open conversation between all the parties – and very much involving both the children and mother in this (indeed they should be at the centre) – and supporting them to think in depth about their wishes and wellbeing. After all, the family members themselves know much more about the situation than we ever will. And there's at least the possibility that the wellbeing of both mother and children depend primarily on keeping their relationship healthy and as close as possible.

Then there are interesting questions about whether it might be possible to increase the safety of the children through more imaginative means. Where, in this discussion, is the thinking about who they know and trust and can turn to if things get bad and what we can do to support this? And, for that matter, who the mother can turn to too.

Above all it must be destructive if there is a situation in which it is becoming significant that there are tensions (not necessarily the right word but I can't think of a better one) between those paid to help.

Sorry for the long post – once I got started it kept getting longer. Hope that's helpful.
 

Harmony, this is a really interesting post from a Community Care perspective, highlighting the friction between agencies that can arise in the reality of day-to-day social work. It's not entirely clear what the problems are - from the statements "mum is being accused of manipulation" and harmony is "accused of collusion" it's difficult to work out who is doing what - but it does bring the difficulties into sharp focus of different professionals working together across the public and third sector divide. Reading between the lines, is the "hell that is broken loose" being caused by the children's social workers who resent what they view as interference from the advocate?

My understanding of children's advocates is that they exist within the voluntary sector in order to uphold the rights of children in care to complain. But if children are allowed access to that advocate, they should not be thrown out as soon as they start saying things managers and social workers don't like to hear. The fact that the children's advocate is willing to carry on providing the service unpaid shows how strongly he or she feels about the issue. As RobertW suggests, holding a meeting involving all the interested parties to establish the children's best interests would be one way to take things forward. Perhaps that would help to dispel any myths about the professionals or service users involved that have been created by all the accusations flying around.

Unfortunately this is not an unusual situation.  Many professionals see advocacy as part of their role and are therefore reluctant to refer on to independant services.  To be effective advocacy has to be completely independant.  At the end of the day we are all in paid employment and have responsibities to our employer as well as our clients.  The beauty of advocacy is that they are only responsible to their client and are not caught up in the politics.  Accusing you of collusion is an attempt to frighten you off.  You are doing your job which is more than can be said for the ones who had a "beer" together and hold meetings without the children.  Perhaps the mother is manipulating but that doesnt stop the children having rights.