'A government-commissioned report will this week lift the lid on the scale of the abuse suffered by children who are taken into care to be protected from their families.
A review of family court cases involving 682 children found there were overwhelming reasons for social services taking the children into care, with an average of seven different risk factors being found in each case...'
Should make interesting reading. An overview of the report can be found here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/02/childprotection.children
I noticed that too Grinch. It could be a really important report if it starts to undermine the accusation that social workers are snatching kids for no good reason.
CareSpace support
Its about time that the anti-social work lobby had some hard evidence thrown at them to disprove the widespread myth that social workers are merely child snatchers...Social workers hit back at John Hemming MP in Community Care last year, for his allegations about social workers taking children to meet targets. Public ignorance about social workers is truly astounding and urgently needs redressing
Interestingly, the anti-social work brigade - if they want to be consistent about it - will not be satisfied with this research from the Ministry of Justice as it says that in no cases did the family courts or guardians consider councils to have brought care or supervision order applications unnecessarily, and in only a small percentage did judges not end up making some kind of order.
Well, key to the arguments of John Hemmings et al is that all three agencies are part of the problem at best and involved in a conspiracy to help councils hit their supposed adoption targets at worst.
But, yes, for anyone who doesn't come to this study with such creative preconceptions, it pretty much demonstrates that social workers are not "snatching" babies or children from anyone.
Though it does raise an interesting point. In most cases, the children in question were known to social services (a very high proportion were already on the child protection register) but in a significant number of these, councils made an unplanned crisis intervention.
This obviously raises the issue of how councils can ensure that families are supported to stop cases where children are at risk but can be supported within the family descending into the sort of chaos that requires a care order.
I guess the new public law outline is supposed to incentivise councils to tackle this.
Good points all.
With regards to John Hemming, I think he dwelt too much on the 'conspiracy' angle of his argument at the expense of the good points he had to make about the opening-up of the family courts and the public law processes. I think the massive backlash from social workers was an indication of how they felt his accusations (about moving too fast in the direction of care proceedings and ultimately adoption) just did not match up to the reality of their experiences, regardless of whether he could provide statistics that suggested that decisions were made based on reaching certain targets (and for the record I am totally against targets).
As for the public law outline, it does appear to make more sense to try and get more things done prior to proceedings (assessments, legal advice, etc), however, I do feel that unless the issues of staff retention, sickness, training etc. are properly addressed then there will still be delays, assessments out of timescale, and I'm afraid to say, proceedings that could have been avoided with more timely and appropriate intervention.
"Lies, damn Lies and Statistics" - a reading of this very interesting Research might, indeed, indicate that social workers are not bringing Care Proceedings unnecessarily BUT it also highlights quite graphically a huge amount of far from acceptable social work practice.
With only 26.7 Cases recording details of Initial Assessments and 43.2% Core Assessments (of which 15 were undated!) at the commencement of Proceedings and with 53 Cases where familes had been offered no services at all it is hardly a rosy and reassuring portrait of all that is good.
Combine this with almost 40% of Cases having no Guardian at the First hearing in Family Proceedings Courts and 12 % in County Courts there are grounds to suggest that even the Court process potentially let children and families down at the outset.
It is also interesting that 40% of 'index' children were aged under 1 year of age.
As a former Service Manager I found an awful lot to be extremely worried about and certainly the Research offers little ground for any complacency. We have got to do very much better if we can openly and ethically say that we have worked well with parents and carers - we need to question the nature and responsiveness of social care preventive services - especially those at locality / neighbourhood levels.
This Research demands far greater detailed study and headlines such as have already appeared neither do it justice nor maximise what the lessons are that we still have to learn.
Come on Rupert, don't burst the bubble just yet!
On a serious note, research indicating that social workers aren't bringing care proceedings unnecessarily needn't be inviting complacency, in fact, it's vitally important to acknowledge what is going right. How else would we know?
Also, some initial and core assessments may be missing from the files but this doesn't necessarily equate to poor social work practice per se, it may just point to the lack of evidence on the case file of the good social work practice and assessment that is happening. A completed core assessment tells you little if anything about the relationship between worker and family and whether they've worked openly or ethically. Frontline social work has now become incredibly prescriptive and its effectiveness measured by the number of forms completed and whether they were completed in particular timescales whereas the measure of good social work practice has to be more than this and whether certain boxes have been ticked.
I totally agree that there is a way to go yet and, as the research suggests, there are lessons that still need to be learned. I would suggest that one of the most important lessons we need to learn is that under current resources and with such prescriptive ways of working and assessing we might - and I mean might - just get to the situation where the relevant 'paperwork' is completed in the majority of cases. However, the payoff is less time spent building up a relationship and working with families as well as less time liaising and working with other professionals. I see this kind of payoff everyday and the social worker is never happy with it and families and other agencies are rarely, if ever, understanding of it.
Just when things were starting to look a little better, the judge in the Nottingham case suggests the case was "far from unique"
This seems surprising to me - is that other people's experience?
Yes, it's hard to know what he was basing that on. He's an experienced family judge so he should know but the GSCC has strongly come back and said that Nottingham did not reflect practice in general.
Interestingly, the press hasn't gone mad on this story, which is something I suppose.
On Rupert M's point, we should definitely point out the failings identified by the Ministry of Justice study and others, and there's certainly no room for complacency, but isn't the point that social workers (and magazines like ourselves) need to take every opportunity to rebut any misinformation in the press about the profession?
But point taken about my story/blog on this!
On the Nottingham case, I was surprised by how "even-handed" the Daily Mail was, it even quoted Munby as saying that managers were at fault more so than the "overworked" social workers.
I am starting a column in the mamgazine on press coverage so if anyone sees anything of interest, including local news. etc send a url or excerpt to:
keith.sellick@rbi.co.uk
I have read the full report and found it alarming.
I will say this: as one of your "service users", after 54 weeks of a living hell, the judge ruled that the case against me had no merit and was malicious. I had witnesses to testify that the SW involved stated, "But your child is so bright, so personable and attractive- he is an easy adoption and will just off the back of him get my annual bonus".
Yes, my children "were previously known to social services" due to malicious reports from ex husband- all found as "revenge phone calls"- the courts removed all his visitation rights. My 13 year old was PAID to make an allegation against me and 7 days later withdrew it admitting she was paid- too late, I was told "the process has been started and can't be stopped."
I was still forced to be assessed to death: psychologists, psychiartists, independent social worker, blood tests, etc.
Findings:
Mother is a member of mensa with no significant mental health problems (some PTSD due to ex husband). House is maintained to an exceptional standard. Children are well fed with high quality food. All children perform outstandingly at school. Toys and Books in the home are age appropriate and suitable. Children are encouraged to participate in church and other child centred activities.
In spite of this I was still forced to endure: observation to see if I knew how to clean my son's teeth, did I know how to make a slice of toast?, could I read a basic nursery rhyme, IQ tests, interrogation about my sexual habits and my menstrual cycle, forced sterilisation, my job lost, almost became financially bankrupt.
I am no fan of Mr. Hemmings: he was my MP at the time and refused to help. So yes, there are cases where people have to go through the system unjustly and unfairly. Rightly or wrongly my children now hear the term SS and say, do those Nazi's want to come again.
Two sides to every coin.
TC
Of course a government study would clear social workers of 'baby snatching' , they aren't going to drown the dog because it has flea's are they ?
How can you possibly use a discredited 'mental' illness such as MBP ( now re-branded as FII) to take a child away from a mother at birth or shortly after.
Because a mother has had problems in the 'past' does not mean she will harm the child in the future.
We do not have a law for precognative crimes in this country except inside the family courts.
A mother 'may' cause harm to her child at 'some' time in the 'future' therefore we shall take the child.
Well then maybe we should just take every child at birth becauise very human being is capable of harming another human being, so should all children be looked after by the state?
Court evidence should be just that, evidence. You can not show a file to a dr and ask, could this mother be a danger ?
When did social workers become psychics? When did doctors become psychics?
If we allow such thinking to occure then where does it stop ?
A social worker has seen instances of child cruelty that may taint their prospectives on parents and life, so should they therefore undergo rigorous and constant psychological evaluations to continue in their jobs?
Come on people, let's get back to basics in the child protection genre, we know who are abusing their children and who are getting the pointy end of the stick, let's not let management and targets to interfere with the job at hand.
Schroder's Cat,
And if the report had come to the conclusion that social workers were baby snatching would you still be so quick to reject its findings?
I agree, social workers aren't psychics, perhaps you can let the media and wider society know this as it seems to be their expectation that we are.
You say, 'Because a mother has had problems in the 'past' does not mean she will harm the child in the future.' I agree, however, what do you think should happen if you suspect that a parent may harm their child in the future?
On a final note, you'll be pleased to know that neither I nor any of my colleagues let management and targets interfere with the job at hand as we're too busy thinking of ways to keep children at home with their families.
Hello Grinch and thanks for the reply,
Would I be so quick to dismiss a report that says social worker are baby snatchers?, no to be honest I wouldn't as I am on the other side of the coin and deal with parents every day who's children are being taken for reason's that do not meet the safeguarding children's guidelines, or any other set of guidelines I have come across.
I believe a mother having an eating disorder when she was a teen and beating it, never to have another 'problem' occure, to be judged fit by numerous 'professionals' and have a high IQ, a well paying career, stability etc, etc, only to be 'judged' as unfit by a social worker and backed up by a psych letter from a person who had only read a file and never met her to be an unbelievable abuse of both the mother and child, quite obviously I can not name her or the people involved in her case, but I can tell you that those are the exact circumstances of the case, this woman's child was taken and adopted, as are so many more children every year.
I do not believe you can speak for all of your colleagues Grinch, when you say they are too busy keeping the children at home with their families as we all know miscarriages of justice occure all the time, whether through government pressure to keep to the BVI 's, bad practice of management or just incompetence.
I have spoken to a lot of social workers who have left the child protection genre and moved onto other things, not because they didn't believe it to be a worthy cause, but because they just could not live with themselves knowing what was happening within that field, unfortunately those are the kinds of social workers we need inside the profession, not the one's who turn a blind eye or obey the order's for the sake of their jobs.
In the best interests of the children should mean just that, don't you think?
Hi Schroder Cat
I understand that this is a very emotional subject, howver, there are two sides to every story and I do believe that Grinch makes a valid comment that cannot be dismissed. I have worked as a frontline Social Worker for the Local Authroity for over five years and in that time I have seen both sides of this argument and been stuck in the middle of many. I agree we should attempt to keep children within the family home as good practice tells us that the children would progress better and develop within the family home or with family members in a more stable way than in foster care. however, that is not always possible and judgement calls are needed for each individual family. Some calls are good and others are made by managers who do not know the cases in depth. We are all in this together and should be supporting each other. If we see bad practice either by a colleague or by a manager we should feel confident in the process that we can report it without fear of being sacked or shunned by our colleagues.
We should be shouting for less cases so we can provide 100% of our time to each child and not just skimming hoping that day by day nothing goes wrong. Matbe that would be a better way forward for all of us so we dont have to worry that we are just doing enough. I know some great workers who give their all to the service as I did and we end up leaving and taking another role because we are sick of the treatment and lack of support.
In addition to being a social worker I have a legal qualification as well. From a legal point of view, the taking away of the child was completely wrong, since there were procedures for doing so, which were not followed. Why this was allowed to be the case is a totally different matter. However, I would like to draw attention to a different, but a related matter. And that matter is the culpability of the employers.
I am sure that if the courts had heavily criticised the social workers involved, the next thing that would happen, if it has not happened already, would be a disciplinary process, which will no doubt be aimed at punishing, rather than finding out the truth - so as to see what lessons could be learnt from the events. I hope that with the establishing of GSCC, which has kindly compiled codes of ethics for both practitioners and employers, action would equally be taken against employers who contravene the codes.
If the above is not possible, the possibility remains that hard-pushed frontline social workers will remain the sacrificial lambs they are now.
An interesting point, Hallam, in respect of employers who do not, of course, have to be registered with the GSCC! Indeed many senior managers are not registered as they are not classed as being 'social workers'!!!
The Code for Employers does, however, refer to them needing to:
1) 'make sure people are suitable to enter the social care workforce and understand (my italics and underlining) their roles and responsibilities.'
2) 'have written policies and procedures in place to enable social care workers to meet the GSCC Code of Practice for Social Care Workers.'
3) 'provide training and development opportunities to enable social care workers to strengthen and develop their skills and knowledge.'
4) 'put into place and implement written policies and procedures to deal with dangerous, discriminatory or exploitative behaviour and practice'
5) 'promote the GSCC's codes of practice to social care workers, service users (my italics and underlining) and carers and cooperate with the GSCC's proceedings.'
It would be interesting if either staff involved or the Service User felt that they had any evidence that the employer had failed in any of their duties and obligations under these requirements.
Hi Schroders Cat, thank you for your courteous response. It's quite difficult dealing with such in-depth and emotive issues through the medium of a discussion forum but I'll do my best to reply in a coherent way to the issues you've raised. (And apologies to the moderators if the post is too long)
Schroders Cat: Hello Grinch and thanks for the reply, Would I be so quick to dismiss a report that says social worker are baby snatchers?, no to be honest I wouldn't as I am on the other side of the coin and deal with parents every day who's children are being taken for reason's that do not meet the safeguarding children's guidelines, or any other set of guidelines I have come across. I believe a mother having an eating disorder when she was a teen and beating it, never to have another 'problem' occure, to be judged fit by numerous 'professionals' and have a high IQ, a well paying career, stability etc, etc, only to be 'judged' as unfit by a social worker and backed up by a psych letter from a person who had only read a file and never met her to be an unbelievable abuse of both the mother and child, quite obviously I can not name her or the people involved in her case, but I can tell you that those are the exact circumstances of the case, this woman's child was taken and adopted, as are so many more children every year.
This is going to sound like a cop out - but I hope you at least appreciate my honesty - when I say that I can't possibly make any informed comment(s) on individual cases or second guess the decisions made by the professionals involved unless I know all 'sides' of the argument. What you are saying may well be true, that you have come across many cases that have resulted in children being removed despite the fact that they may not have met the thresholds laid out in statute or guidance, how can I gainsay it when I just don't know the facts of the individual cases? I can only speak from my own experience (for what it's worth) and the available evidence (which you don't accept) that the vast majority of cases where children are removed meet the appropriate thresholds for this kind of statutory intervention. Perhaps those thresholds are too low and intervention happens too quickly but that's probably a discussion for another time....
Schroders Cat: I do not believe you can speak for all of your colleagues Grinch, when you say they are too busy keeping the children at home with their families as we all know miscarriages of justice occure all the time, whether through government pressure to keep to the BVI 's, bad practice of management or just incompetence.
I wouldn't presume to speak on behalf of all social workers but I know my work colleagues well enough that I can say with some certainty that I've accurately represented their views.
Yes miscarriages of justice and 'mistakes' occur all too regularly, in all spheres of professional life whether that be in social services, health, education or the criminal justice system, and for all the reasons you describe (not sure what BVIs are, do you mean best value?). I wouldn't and couldn't dispute this. What I'm disputing is the argument that suggests there is a routine and mass removal of children from their families for insufficient/inappropriate reasons.
Schroders Cat: I have spoken to a lot of social workers who have left the child protection genre and moved onto other things, not because they didn't believe it to be a worthy cause, but because they just could not live with themselves knowing what was happening within that field, unfortunately those are the kinds of social workers we need inside the profession, not the one's who turn a blind eye or obey the order's for the sake of their jobs.
I too have seen many (far too many) social workers leave frontline work, usually due to high and complex workloads, the vast amounts of 'paperwork', low pay, lack of agency support, lack of public support, etc. but never because they could not live with themselves as a result of what they were doing. But then, what do I know, it's not like I've met everybody who's left frontline social work so what you say may well be true. It's a complex and tough old task and I can certainly see how some people would struggle with much of what they're asked to do (me included).
Schroders Cat: In the best interests of the children should mean just that, don't you think?
And therein lies the rub. One simple phrase, the interpretation of which is probably the main source of disagreement between agencies and professionals and, for better or worse, has resulted in a vast and complicated system of laws, guidance, protocols, policies, procedures and structures that professionals and families alike have to wade through and work within. And within this system difficult decisions are made, sometimes with little information, sometimes with lots of information, often with conflicting information, but - and there's no escaping it - decisions still have to be made. Even if that decision is not to do anything. One thing's for sure, second guessing those decisions is so much easier than actually making them. For my part, there are few if any cases where, in hindsight, I would not have done things differently. There are some where I don't think I've acted quickly enough to protect a child, some where maybe I've acted too quickly, and not nearly enough where I found a balance between the two. I would welcome a system that supports better and more effective social work practice and - sincerely - if you think your ideas for change will do this then the best of luck to you.
Lord Laming recently said that social work is not rocket science and he was right, social work is much more complicated.
Hello Grinch,
Yes, BVI's best value indicators.
No one in any realm would dispute that there are sadly some children that need to be protected from their parents, either through abuse or neglect and I, like every other rational person in this country would gladly stand up and applaud when the decision is taken and a child is saved.
What I do have very grave concerns about is the use of syndromes like MBP, now discredited along with Meadows and Southall and so repackaged as FII and used against parents ( mothers) to remove the child.
Now i'm not saying either that some parents may harm their child along these ( very wide) lines, but the sheer amount of parents ( mothers) that this has been used against is an overwhelming amount and parents ( mothers) can not all suddenly have developed this 'illness' unless the government has put something in the water.
Also the term 'significant' harm, it is so wide based as to encompass anything imaginable under the framework that it is being abused by some professionals for reasons that only they are aware of.
I have had mother's who's social worker/ cafcass officer has claimed the child has too many toys, when it's been pointed out in court that's not such a bad thing, they will reply, the bedroom is cluttered with toys leading to a lack of space, pointed out again, the child should not be spending it's time in the bedroom there comes no reply except, they may want too.
This in anyone's book is nit-picking at it's best, sheer stupidity at it's worst.
The guidelines have become unimaginably loose as to encompass anything imaginable as a reason for 'concern'.
I believe the guidelines are a 'reason for concern' as are the managers.
I worked as a social worker for many years in Nottingham. I have worked elsewhere in the country and have extensive knowledge through my current work of many other authorities in England and Wales. Whilst I am sure that the case is not actually unique, I think it is very unusual. My memory of working in Nottingham is that we were under tremendous pressure in this extremely heavy duty city. A glance at the crime statistics would tell you what kind of a place Nottingham is. Child care work there is complex and pressured. Staff at the front line are often inexperienced cannon fodder. Quite frankly I don't know how anyone sticks it - I had ten years of it and felt thoroughly burnt out by it. I hear from current staff that the local government re-organisation, when Nottingham once again gained independence from Nottinghamshire County Council, was not a success for chidren's work in the city. People tell me that since the split, there is far less support for front line workers, and there has been an erosion of professionalism. At the HR level the removal of some "perks" for front line workers, such as the extra days of leave still enjoyed by Nottinghamshire County Council staff, meant that the City has a struggle to retain qualified staff. Corporately there is a lack of understanding of social work issues. There is also a fairly high turnover of senior staff, although perhaps not a high enough turnover of some of them, according to my informants.
In his judgement - much misreported, including initially on Community Care's website (apologies for that!), Justice Munby spoke of the tremendous pressures on social workers in Nottingham given the significant social problems, as well as the need for better management and training.
Does anyone else have experiences of Nottingham?
I was told we owned too many books!!!
Nothing surprises me anymore millen, one parent was told they shouldn't have wireless for their computer because of the 'waves' were damaging.
Most schools have wireless now, so I guess we should all home educate ? except this isn't an acceptable method of education, with a glowing report from the local education welfare department and an excellent social network set up for their children with other home ed kids , two mothers have had residence of their children transferred to their abusive father because the children should be at school, according to the guardians?
I would just like to see some consistency out there folks.
Hi Schroders Cat,
Schroders Cat: No one in any realm would dispute that there are sadly some children that need to be protected from their parents, either through abuse or neglect and I, like every other rational person in this country would gladly stand up and applaud when the decision is taken and a child is saved. What I do have very grave concerns about is the use of syndromes like MBP, now discredited along with Meadows and Southall and so repackaged as FII and used against parents ( mothers) to remove the child. Now I'm not saying either that some parents may harm their child along these ( very wide) lines, but the sheer amount of parents ( mothers) that this has been used against is an overwhelming amount and parents ( mothers) can not all suddenly have developed this 'illness' unless the government has put something in the water.
Now I'm not saying either that some parents may harm their child along these ( very wide) lines, but the sheer amount of parents ( mothers) that this has been used against is an overwhelming amount and parents ( mothers) can not all suddenly have developed this 'illness' unless the government has put something in the water.
The word 'hubris' springs to mind when I think of the controversies surrounding the work of Meadows and Southall. It's been my experience that there is a deference and unquestioning obedience toward doctors and consultants unrivaled in any other profession. In some respects (and only some), it also reflects how 'dependent' social services can be on the evidence provided by medical practitioners, e.g., if a paediatric registrar states categorically that a child has suffered an injury that can only be non-accidental or deliberate then how can social services argue with that? What qualifies a social worker to question their medical judgment? Where social services can assert their authority is through the identification and management of ongoing risks. However, I've always found it interesting - and often frustrating - how often paediatricians become experts in this sphere as well and expect to be obeyed without question!
However, I digress (a bit) and maybe I'm being a bit too cynical because I enjoy a predominantly good relationship with my colleagues in health and, as you say, there are some parents who actually do fabricate illnesses in their children. We must be careful not to just discard all of the evidence surrounding this/these type(s) of abuse because it has been misdiagnosed in some situations.
Schroders Cat: Also the term 'significant' harm, it is so wide based as to encompass anything imaginable under the framework that it is being abused by some professionals for reasons that only they are aware of.
I accept that the term 'significant harm' is not an absolute, in fact, it's what makes deciding whether the threshold has been reached so difficult. I imagine you're familiar with the statutory guidance 'Working Together' and its definition(s) of the concept and can understand what I'm trying to say. I can certainly see why you might see the definition as too loose but it's about the best we've got....
....or perhaps not. What would you replace it with?
Well, if you use the Delphi Technique- then you can the exact result you desire.
Paper will not refuse ink.
However, with all the secrecy, how can we be 100% sure.??
I do know of many social workers who are shocked to witness the Queens of Removals at the worst.
I have observed 3 of them- all women- all with personal problems- all with unresolved mother issues- all wishing they had been adopted as babies.
Could it be these professionals need some therapy of their own??
It is crystal to me - a professional that they are all projecting their own unresolved inner issues onto service users and wrecking the lives of innocent children and parents.
4: -Any burglar facing a prison sentence of 6 months or more can demand a hearing before a jury so how can it be right or just that parents who risk losing their children for life to "forced adoption" are denied this option . Juries consider complicated medical evidence in cases such as murder, and compensation for injuries, also complicated tax laws in cases of fraud, and insider dealing. The simple decision whether a mother accused of risk of emotional abuse should keep her newborn baby or not would I think we must all agree be more likely to favour the mother if considered by a jury but records show that such cases nearly always favour the social services if decided by a judge. That is probably why juries are banned from the family courts but allowed to decide libel cases in other civil courts! To take a newborn baby from its mother and give it away for adoption by strangers is a far far worse punishment for her than any jail sentence as it condemns the mother to a life sentence and the baby to probable death later in life if it should require a kidney or bone marrow transplant or other medical attention in which a birth family member was needed but could not be located! How can this be justice?
child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or
poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child’s moral and physical health are not
endangered. Public authorities cannot improve on nature
I agree too.
However it is hard for Joe Public to imagine this is happening, as he is not seeing it in the media.
I am a professional, and if you had told me any of this 15 years ago, I too would have laughed at you and said you were paranoid.
But, I learned fast how the social workers, cafcass, solicitors etc all work together and the judge is their rubber stamp.
I simply asked one day- "Go on, what is this really about"?
The answer is there for all to hear.....We are here to show you, WE HAVE THE POWER"
You have to do everything we say or else the children go, and we arrange electric shock therapy for them, because they are too articulate, and strong willed, just like you.
We cannot get you on anything, as you are too well up on the law, so we will make you homeless from your own home.
So it was clear, it was not a child protection issue.
It was a power issue.
I thought I was the only one, but in 14 years, I have met thousands of people like me.
So, never go to SS for help if your husband abuses you, because as figures show 51% of you will loose your children.
Of course removing children fragments them and creates mental illness later on.
Most definitely, children will not reach their full potential.
So, then logically, how can that be..Best Interests of the Child?
I was told my children were too advanced because at 8 my son was using lego technic and reading Dickens.
So what. Was it better him to be stupid?
I home schooled, and this boy had his own business at 15.
However, mention the word social worker or psychologist and his face is whiter than white.
So, you see even after 14 years, he remembers very well.
He does not live in UK, does not intend to have children, all as a result of a bullying child in an adult body- labelled social worker.
However, he is correct that many social workers are not properly trained.
Example- girl of 16 makes disclosures,admits she told lies re abuse in order to get her way, when younger.
Social worker immediately re-acts- "Oh God, we did not expect you to come out with that"
Child immediately pulls back into her shell, because of reaction of social worker- leading child subconsciously to believe she was in trouble.
Just one example of how trained one has to be to do this job properly.
It is not found in books, or ticking boxes, but in the tuning in to the child and having one foot in their world for that session.
Social Work is so, so easy, as long as you have a degree in the University of Life first.
No one can gain this except through many years in the learning zone of real life, gaining insight into every aspect of human life.
About 50 is a good age to become a social worker.
Going into this profession at 20 is like dropping someone into a hot fire.
Also, one has to be bright, happy, totally able to inner parent themselves, in case that inner child kicks off and reacts to service users.
There is an old saying- unless you have walked in their shoes, then do not judge.
Encouragement and joy and bright happy faces, bright clean clothes, and in tune with 21st century children also helps.
Above all - have fun.
Were the parents whose children had been taken consulted in this report and offered the opportunity to give their views?How can anybody justify the taking annually of hundereds of new born babies at birth from mothers said to be a risk of causing their babies to suffer emotional abuse at some ill defined time in the future?
margaretthatcherschild.
Oh I believe you and understand.
But only because I have had similar experience.
Mine was I was an alcaholic for drinking one cap of whiskey in a glass of hot water with lemon for a cold.
Oh I demanded a blood test there and then, but no not needed- but still the label stuck.
What I would not give to have a discussion with him..
Best not, I would only shock him with the real truth about himself and burst his ego bubble.
Oh they take the easy way out- phone up the expert witness and tell them what to say.
It definitely happens, because I have proof from my own case and several others.
Yes, it is a witch hunt in more ways than one.
I was deemed a real witch, for wearing egyptian jewellery.
I know a judge in Liverpool who also calls mothers witches, spell binders etc, just because they speak out strong and tell it as it is.
Food for thought !
Adoption: Standards
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families which local authorities have received payments from central Government for achieving adoption target levels; and how much each received in each of the last three years. [151067]
John Healey: I have been asked to reply. 30 local authorities have been rewarded for successfully achieving adoption targets in their local public service agreements (LPSA). The better outcomes and amount of ‘performance reward grant’ (PRG) each has received over the three years 2004/05 to 2006/07 in relation to their performance in these targets is set out in the following table. In addition, 13 local authorities did not achieve the adoption targets in their local PSA and hence received no PRG for this target. One local authority is still to make a claim Local PSAs—which are negotiated between local authorities and central Government policy departments, facilitated by the DCLG—have helped to incentivise local authorities and partners to provide better public services to their citizens around priorities for improvement locally. Evaluation shows they have been successful in doing this, with real benefits in improved outcomes for local people and communities.
Local PSA adoption and placement targets: payments made to date under local PSAs Local authority Amount of ‘reward grant’ paid (£) Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council 210,173.00 Blackburn with Darwen 307,367.00 Bristol City Council 307,512.00 Buckinghamshire County Council 526,958.00 Bromley (LB) 499,440.00 Camden (LB) 318,916.50 Cheshire County Council 685,134.00 Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council 578,333.00 Durham County Council 502,675.00 Enfield (LB) 244,963.00 Essex County Council 2,469,200.00 Gloucestershire County Council 612,209.00 Greenwich (LB) 580,996.00 3 Sep 2007 : Column 1703W Halton Borough Council 153,938.00 Hampshire 1,675,619.00 Hounslow (LB) 165,019.00 Kensington and Chelsea (LB) 339,117.00 Kent County Council 2,156,583.00 Lewisham (LB) 602,854.00 Liverpool City Council 347,404.00 Luton Borough Council 400,027.00 Manchester City Council 984,877.00 Merton Borough Council 358,708.00 Northamptonshire County Council 1,119,115.00 Sheffield City Council 1,025,000.00 Southwark (LB) 435,242.00 St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council 83,845.00 Wandsworth (LB) 387,627.00 Warwickshire County Council 231,061.00 York City Council 203,620.00
Adoption target met by Hammersmith and Fulham Press Office 10/03/2008 101 children adopted in the last three years More than 100 children have been adopted in the borough during the last three years, after the Council met a target from central Government target that many experts thought would be unachievable. The Government target, known as a Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA), challenged the Council to successfully achieve 101 adoptions or secure placements during the last three year period in return for £500,000 of funding. At the time, the Council felt that the bar was set too high, as in the previous three year period only 71 children had been adopted - a figure that was then considered to be very high. However, H&F’s adoption team swung into action and pulled out all of the stops in order to meet the target.
Ian, you will find that children have NO VOICE in this.
It is said by those in control that they do, but they do not.
I tried several times to get the voices of children heard, but the Guardian says he/she knows what they want and need.
Oh no, I have a child who needs justice for abuse she suffered in care, but she is locked away, no phone, in case she tells.
That is how it really is. Cover it all up, and to hell with the child.
Very Victorian thinking of course.
These are only my experiences of course, and others may have experienced something totally different.