This looks like essential viewing:
Follows Bristol's child protection teams over the course of a year to see frontline work first-hand and explore how the crises of the last decade have had an impact on their ability to safeguard children
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bskrq
It has already received a glowing review in the Guardian: "At last, a documentary that presents social work in all its complex glory."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/24/social-work-portrayal-protecting-our-children
Tony
(http://opencollection.wordpress.com/)
The Coventry adoption programme probably left more questions than it gave answers - the problem with these 'fly on the wall' programmes is that within such a short screening time it is impossible to convey social work in all its complexities and I fear that Bristol too may have set itself up to fail / be criticised.
I have had some involvement in this programme and do think the BBC is committed to portraying the complexities of child protection over the 3x 1 hour episodes. From the parts I have seen, the programmes are very sensitive to the families and to the social workers. However, inevitably there will be criticism and backlash but it does, and will, get child protection some different kind of media attention and will be a great training resource.
I shall watch this with interest.
Yes. I'm an adoptive Mum and also work with social services to improve the way they deliver their work. Considering the ever-increase in demand (which is never matched by increasing resources), I'd say that most social workers are pretty damned close to saints! The work that you do is so important - and - generally - so badly portrayed in the media.
My personal belief is that children should stay with birth families wherever possible. I wish that social workers were portrayed as support to families first of all, with adoption being very much the last option. I am keen to campaign for social services to have more resources to intervene earlier (e.g. at CIN, before CP becomes an issue). This is surely much more efficient - and kinder and more caring to children and their birth families.
Of course, I am also a fan of adoption; when it really is the right option. My children are the most wonderful people - and I am the luckiest woman on the planet to be able to call them 'mine'. I hope that I do a good enough job - as they have the potential to be really fantastic adults. A lot of our friends have adopted too. People shouldn't believe the horror stories about the children who are up for adoption....any more than they should believe the media stereotypes about social workers! :) x
Well, there we have it, the old dilemma of parents rights versus children's rights and the awful issues of delay.
Sadly, even from this short Programme, it was clear that positive interventions should have happened earlier and a decision about removal in respect of Toby made much earlier - he was apparently globally developmentally delayed with no evidence of progress, home conditions were appalling and a clear health risk and father, especially, quite hostile with a sad history of fathering children who mainly did not survive.
Mother had clearly had an unsatisfactory upbringing herself and whilst verbally competent was finding the 'mountain' too hard to climb to provide 'good enough' care - not maliciously / intentionally but just not, at that point in time, having the skills required and certainly not the family support needed.
Whilst the baby has been placed for adoption Toby's situation is heartbreaking as he will probably continue to present significant 'challenges' and will require very special long-term carers.
After a lifetime in social work I was more saddened to see that so little has changed for the better - we have got to intervene far more purposefully and dynamically than waiting for the damage to be done 3 years or more down the line.
I was surprised at how supportive and hands on the TM appeared.
Overall a pretty good and realistic view of CP. thought the nqsw was a bit of a social work cliche on her bike though!
But great viewing nonetheless.
There's got to be better ways for the Guardian to observe Contact - utterly intimidating for the father I would have thought - 2-way screen?
What would Hackey Model social workers do ?
Using systemic theory and social learning theory would you be able to keep the mother and baby together ?
I felt that although the concerns were very serious and needed immediate action, the parents/mother needed someone to teach and demonstrate exactly what was required rather than a table full of faceless professionals tell them what they can't do well, ( obvious really) and not offer practical support.
The mother would probably have little option in the future for more children given the risks to her health and with support and guidance could of kept her baby girl. Yes it would be a risk, but isn't that what we do ? Manage risk..........
I assume that mother (and father) would have had psychological assessments.
Was a Residential Assessment ever considered?
Was SureStart etc. involved?
Was Speech and Language Therapy involved at an early stage?
I did not catch all the Programme so apologies if any of the above were referred to earlier on.
]Bin out of this for a while now but could clearly see parents needed to be shown not told. Don't we have FSWs any more?
Probably wouldn't have made much difference but at least the court could have seen everything had been tried.
A powerful documentary. It will be the basis for training in child protection.
The programme is a reminder of the ethical dilemmas of social work: protecting the vulnerable people like Toby and respecting the the parents' wishes. But, at the end of the day, what is more important is the interests of the child. Children should be protected at all costs.
I thought the programme was accurate to a degree, but while I could fill in the gaps (with professional knowledge), other things were not very well explained. For example, the role of the Children's Guardian, how assessments were structured, and how evidence is gathered in these cases. Little was explained about the previous history and support that might have been offered.
I agree with some that these are parents that need to be shown, not told what they are doing wrong. A simple working agreement with "clean the carpets, put up a safety gate, buy a bed and bedding, tidy up the kitchen", while it has it's merits, does not go far enough in teaching them how to play with their son, offering him opportunities for stimulation, and teaching them to manage his behaviour. We all know that we cannot do this kind of work with families ourselves due to workload, so there was something either not broadcast or just plain missing.
To be honest I was very surprised that the Paediatrician was happy to say his speech delay could be hereditary, skirting around environmental reasons such as inconsistent parenting. You would expect a professional of such experience to be bold enough to state this (on the balance of probabilities).
I was impressed with the support of the Team Manager, I have experienced support like this in practice, especially in cases of neglect, when observations are so important. I liked the fact she kept to her decision when the father was withdrawing his consent, although I was disappointed that an EPO could not be heard that evening at 6:00 p.m.
I was surprised to see the Guardian supervising contact himself on this occasion, CAFCASS in my area do have a one way mirror in their child observation rooms, but generally only use it in their private law disputes, and not the public law cases. I have known external contact assessments commissioned when families have disputes with the Local Authority around long term contact arrangements, this kind of practice could prevent money being wasted in this way. In fact, the social worker should be doing this type of thing every now and then.
Rupert the show did not touch on any of the points you raised - but that does not mean they had not been considered, particularly in light of the case being in Court. However, if they were to show more of that, something else would have been taken out as they only had an hour to show months and months of work. I think it showed quite well how manipulative some adults can be and how they make veiled threats. I think the lad could have been better protected from some of the adult discussions he witnessed and spared the distress that came with that. There was actually quite little about the child himself, the focus was quite firmly on the adults, and I found that quite interesting at a time when we try to bring the children back to the centre of our intervention. But all in all I think it was a good show, I'll definitely watch the following two episodes.
Thanks 'RP' - yes, it was interesting to see where the apparent focus was and from the attitudes of the workers I would not be surprised to learn that parents had perhaps received more intensive support than was shown - if so, it just reinforces my concerns as to how you demonstrate social work effectively in such a short period of time.
CAFCASS did not come out of it as being very proactive / effective in being the 'independent' voice of the child and they have facilities to use Family Support staff as part of the Assessment process.
To me the limitations of such a TV programme negates the good that could be achieved because as professionals we look for evidence of good practise whilst the general public look for weaknesses - both views will not have been able to be firmly established from what we all saw.
Showed how effective the fathers strategies for deflection/avoidance/disempowerment are.
Accuse of "looking for an excuse to split us up"
Demand another Social Worker
Accuse of " Shifting the goalposts"
Become verbally aggressive and blocking.
Strategies to counter these techniques are difficult to teach and need to be "customised" for each circumstance...and are not always effective.
I watched this with a person who has no background in Social Work and no knowledge of it, and with great effort I made no comment throughout the programme.
This person commented afterwards.
"That was just luck; if the woman hadn't been hospitalised unexpectedly and given them the opportunity, they would never have had the nerve to take the boy away, and the couple may not have spilt up, and the poor kid would still be living like that"
I would like to think not, but that was how "the layperson" saw it.
I wonder, I just wonder! The thought very much also went through my mind at the time.
"Lord of the flies" went through my mind, as it was very much three children trying to cope on their own. They all needed fostering.
Try A Day in the Life Of A Social Worker
I don't know how widely known this is, but alongside BBC TV's Protecting Our Children, The OU's OpenLearn are providing this free online multimedia activity:
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/social-care/social-work/day-the-life
It asks "Could you manage 24 hours as a social worker? A Day in the Life... provides you with the opportunity to step into a social worker's shoes and to experience a 'typical' day in the office."
My first impression is of how engagingly interactive it is
Alongside our views here, The Guardian's social care network has begun this online poll today: How realistic is the BBC's Protecting Our Children?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/social-care-network/poll/2012/jan/31/protecting-our-children-poll
At the moment, nearly 90% of respondents are saying it was a realistic portrayal of child protection social work.
iv just done the day and life of a social worker got to say i enjoyed it thank you for the link,iv now decided this is a job i would like to do and iv made a appointment at uni tomorrow to see if i can move forward to doing this job kim
Didnt see the majority of what happeded Im sure and what we did see was cherry picked so its hard to judge really - still it made good TV
Agree with rupert that the guardian was poor - didnt he at one point shake his head a couple of times? Can hardly have been confidence building for the man And prob edited out but why didnt he say what the things were that he'd done right? Not exactly from a strenghts perspective
May have missed the bit where there was evidence for the dad being the abuser or why he was incapable of looking after the child as soon as mum went into hospital?
Ive heard the quote about "if Im terrified then think what it must be like for the child" and agree with it in principle but I know a lot of my friends middle class and lower- would "kick off" the minute social services came round. Not sure any of his behaviour would have made me terrified (or sleepless) and Ive definitely heard worse everyday while out shopping from parents to their children. Was he just not a poor communicator in a very stressful situation?
Poor living conditions admittedly but as a lay person said to me today - "its the social's fault for not giving them somewhere better to live". Not as easy as that I know but still
Did they have learning difficulties? Agree with others that children raising children and it seemed they were self nerglecting so hardly surprising that followed thru to their children.
Echo that support services should have earlier.
also - why on earth did the family agree to be filmed? and surely any half decent lawyer would have made a point of the effect of the cameras on skewing peoples behaviour - Im assuming they followed a number of cases around and then picked the best one but how and why would anyone say yes - particularly if you were an abuser.
I actually have worked with a manager that was that supportive but I'm sure she raised her game for the cameras
In hindsight the outcome was always going to be removal cos if not the child would have been easily identified from that programme and would surely have been unethical
riveting viewing tho and ill definitely watch next weeks
I too wondered why the parents agreed to be filmed? And also wondered how informed their 'consent' was for the filming.
Listening to people who don't work in this area respond to the programme has been very interesting - while I know that anecdotes do not make data - it did seem to polarise opinion within the my group of friends.
I suspect that the department had already started some form of legal process because when dad was asked to give consent to S20 he was straight on the phone with a solicitor. He did not need to explain the background or ask for a solicitor, he appeared to be talking with somebody already in the know - this would make sense if the PLO was started or if the parents had legal representation at the second Conference, which is often a sign that the LA is on the verge of initiating proceedings. I also think that dad played for the cameras a bit, he even made a reference at the outset that he wants to say in front of the camera that the Social Worker has a hidden agenda. The manager also commented that dad was OK with accommodation in the car but not in the office, so what's changed - call me cynical, but there probably was no camera in the car, dad had the opportunity to seek legal advice before getting to the office, he probably wanted to make the department look bad in front of the cameras. In some ways having the opportunity to go public has backfired on this family. I am surprised that there was no reference to the independent advice that this family had from their own solicitors, it was made look like they were virtually self representing and were railroaded in decisions without impartial advice.
Regarding the housing - the property was quite small, but it had 2 bedrooms and access to a garden (which was untidy) I don;t think the property itself was a problem - there was no evidence of damp or mould and any carpet would end up looking a mess if the family dog has no choice but to pass urine and faeces on the floor. There was mention of a written agreement and then of a CP plan, but I agree that it is difficult to capture all aspects of a child's emotional and cognitive needs on a basic plan.
RP: I suspect that the department had already started some form of legal process because when dad was asked to give consent to S20 he was straight on the phone with a solicitor. He did not need to explain the background or ask for a solicitor, he appeared to be talking with somebody already in the know - this would make sense if the PLO was started or if the parents had legal representation at the second Conference, which is often a sign that the LA is on the verge of initiating proceedings. I also think that dad played for the cameras a bit, he even made a reference at the outset that he wants to say in front of the camera that the Social Worker has a hidden agenda. The manager also commented that dad was OK with accommodation in the car but not in the office, so what's changed - call me cynical, but there probably was no camera in the car, dad had the opportunity to seek legal advice before getting to the office, he probably wanted to make the department look bad in front of the cameras. In some ways having the opportunity to go public has backfired on this family. I am surprised that there was no reference to the independent advice that this family had from their own solicitors, it was made look like they were virtually self representing and were railroaded in decisions without impartial advice. Regarding the housing - the property was quite small, but it had 2 bedrooms and access to a garden (which was untidy) I don;t think the property itself was a problem - there was no evidence of damp or mould and any carpet would end up looking a mess if the family dog has no choice but to pass urine and faeces on the floor. There was mention of a written agreement and then of a CP plan, but I agree that it is difficult to capture all aspects of a child's emotional and cognitive needs on a basic plan.
What changed was his son started crying when he realised he was being dumped. Dad not equipped to handle this.
elephant in the room - why was it not referred earlier by health visitors/midwife. There should have been a pre birth assessment and they may not have got to the point of removal.
My thoughts regarding the programme were this:
- why was there not more evidence of multi agency decision making at the Conference - it made it look as if it were the Local Authority with the only view point and leading the decision making process
- when the manager discussed with father accommodating Toby under S20 where was the allocated social worker? I know she was a NQSW but she should, in my opinion at least have been in on that discussion. Both as a learning experience but also so as not to be disempowered. I would have been most unhappy if my manager did this without my input.
- as others have said where were the family support team actively modelling with the parents? They could not relate to a list of 'you must do x,y,z' they needed to be shown and supported with this.
- I didn't accept that Toby's developmental delay was as cut and dried as the paediatrician made out. Yes there was a genetic link evidenced but surely the limit in active interaction and stimulation father demonstrated with Toby during contact indicates something about how they are responding to his needs.
I felt that professionals were scared of the father - my evidence for this is the way when the other staff entered the Conference to take Toby off to play there were 2 of them and also on other occasions there were pairings of people together when engaging with father.
I found the programme useful to show to my partner to try to explain what I 'do'. It certainly caused some discussion in the office which is always positive!
Shirack:What changed was his son started crying when he realised he was being dumped. Dad not equipped to handle this.
Shirack I honestly hope that you are right and that dad was genuinely troubled by his son's distress. I watched the footage several times and while I don't dispute this is a possibility, I still think this might have also been another opportunity to have a go at the service in front of the camera. Dad did not seem that troubled when his child was crying while he was restraining him earlier in the program. Toby cried as a direct result of his dad telling him "off you go, see you tomorrow" and then blaming the manager both in front of the camera and while on the phone with his solicitor. He then said "you have no chance of calming him down now" - not necessarily the case as seen earlier in the program, but it does suggest the dad is used to Toby crying. But like i said, maybe i am just being cynical.
I also picked up on the fact that mum says towards the end of the show that she has a support worker helping her improve her parenting skills - makes me think there was more to this case that was not shown. The parents also refer to the fact that they had explored their own backgrounds with the workers and were helped to reflect on their childhood. I felt that mum was far more genuine towards the end, when she clearly had done a lot of soul searching, it's very sad that it was too late and adoption was the best option for both children. I an not optimistic that if things were picked up earlier, the parents, and particularly dad, would have changed, but I think it would have made a world of difference for Toby
'RP' - yes, I think that you are probably correct but the one element that came through was that the timescale was not helpful to Toby prior to his removal and it was telling at the very end that his sister had been placed for adoption but he was still waiting.
Rupert you are absolutely right and hopefully this will show the "anti-child snatching" brigade how damaging delay is for children and how important early action is, particularly in cases like this where all the signs were there - child developmental delay, unexplained bruises, poor household conditions, parents with complex backgrounds, query learning difficulties, subsequent diagnosis of maternal depression, poor diet and hygiene leading to poor health, deprivation, power imbalance within the relationship... but then how many cases like these are there? How many of our S17 cases do end up like this, only to be picked up again by the CP team when the child is much older... I am not surprised it was a low risk case and i can think of many, many others which are the same, and quite a few which are way worse
RP: Rupert you are absolutely right and hopefully this will show the "anti-child snatching" brigade how damaging delay is for children and how important early action is, particularly in cases like this where all the signs were there - child developmental delay, unexplained bruises, poor household conditions, parents with complex backgrounds, query learning difficulties, subsequent diagnosis of maternal depression, poor diet and hygiene leading to poor health, deprivation, power imbalance within the relationship... but then how many cases like these are there? How many of our S17 cases do end up like this, only to be picked up again by the CP team when the child is much older... I am not surprised it was a low risk case and i can think of many, many others which are the same, and quite a few which are way worse
Yeah, I suppose a was a bit mean...
RP: Yeah, I suppose a was a bit mean...
We didn't know enough about the bruises, it all then came down to standards and as we know these are relative.
Think the outcome would have been the same but much to be desired as to how it was arrived at.
It would probably now be helpful if Bristol were able to fill in the missing gaps of what we want to know.
CAFCASS have no facility to use family support workers in any public law cases, only for private law cases. CAFCASS have also very recently made the family support worker's and their role redundant.
Situation changed. When they were a couple opinion was formed that were not good enough parents.
End of programme showed a visibly depressed mother who wanted to give her kids up.
Sigh of relief, lets go with it.
Seems like you have to be of sound mind to make a will but not to surrender your kids.
Easy to criticise but should more effort have been made to preserve the threesome?
Shirack you are right and i admit there have been times when I did sigh with relief when parents stopped opposing Placement Orders, or fighting Care orders, or relatives pulling out of kinship care assessments. I have also been the one advising other parents of the consequences of giving up their children for adoption and urging them to think their decision through, without minimizing the consequences for them and for their kids. I'd like to think that no Social Worker would sigh with relief because it it makes the life easier for them, but because such a decision would stop further delay for the child and would improve their future life chances. The thing is, even if a parent comes to realize their shortcomings and become willing to change, does their timescale fit the child's timescale? I met a mother who had been a drug adict for many, many years and both her children were made subject to Care Orders. I don;t know how come the younger child of two was not made subject to a Placement Order, probably today this would be much more likely to be considered, but when the child was about 12 mother had already made enough changes for the child to be placed back with her (still under a Care Order). He had been in foster care fore something like 10 years. At the point of my involvement things were going very well (I was working with the older child who was a Care Leaver).
I think there can always be more effort put to help families stay together, but the more complex the problems the more time and resources are required, in this case for instance some intense therapeutic support for the parents, and it seems to me that today the wider society is not prepared to pay whatever cost is required. I know parents who paid for therapy privately (and I mean proper therapy, not basic counselling and medication) but it was extremely expensive, they could only pay for so many months out of the number of years required, adults services would not have stepped in because the adult did not have a mental illness and Children's Services could not afford the cost and said it was not in their remit anyway. Realistically, without a fundamental change in thinking to see these parents as human beings rather than a sum of actions and responsibilities, with their own needs and difficulties and requiring tailored support in their own name, we will never be able to see sustainable changes.