Author Archives: Sarah Phillimore

Some strategies for dealing with on line harassment.

This post arises out of a recent discussion on Twitter about effective strategies for dealing with on line behaviour from others that you perceive as harassing or threatening. This is the product of my years of exposure to some very harsh on line environments. I hope its helpful, but of course, it is the result of my own particular experience, it may not resonate for you. In which case, ignore it. Or add some comments and suggestions of your own. 

I have been active on ‘public electronic communications networks’  (for e.g. Twitter) since 2011. My communication style has changed over the years; I hope for the better. I am have become less sensitive to challenge and better able to set appropriate boundaries around my own and other’s behaviour.

At the same time, I have become increasingly concerned about the way people chose to communicate on line. Abuse, aggression and harassment are increasingly common. Those in charge of social media platforms appear to have limited ability and/or willingness to control it.

The upsides of social media are significant – without Twitter for e.g. my opportunities for exposure to other disciplines would be greatly reduced. it would be a shame to lose the opportunity offered to share and explore ideas with many others because you are driven off the internet by the aggression or abuse. So, it’s worth spending some time to think about how you handle people who are abusive on line.

Freedom of speech is a vital component of any civilised society and protected by Article 10 of the ECHR. You are going to have to put up with some exposure to those who say things you don’t like. But the right to freedom of expression is not limitless. The freedom to say outrageous things is not (as some would appear to assume) a duty or a compulsion to say outrageous things. The limits to freedom of speech are rightly set by the law; for example, you cannot defame someone with impunity, you cannot racially abuse them or threaten to rape them without consequence.

Those more extreme abuses of freedom of speech are easy to spot. What causes the problem is that one person’s robust and necessary contribution to a debate can be interpreted by another as offensive or harassing.

So what can you do to improve your on line experiences and/or deal more effectively with those people that you find offensive? I am not suggesting by ‘resilience’ that everyone simply ‘toughen up’ and simply laugh off or ignore disgusting behaviour on line. On the contrary, I believe that such behaviour should be challenged and I am confident I have the necessary personality traits to enable me to engage in such challenge without disproportionate cost to my own emotional well being. But challenge and confrontation doesn’t work for everyone and every situation; you will need to consider other strategies and approaches.

I offer some below.

Know Thyself

Know yourself. Why are you on line? Who is your audience? What do you want to communicate? If you are engaging in debate about controversial issues or ones that encourage polarised and strong views then you are going to meet people who don’t agree with you and who won’t be shy about saying so.  If you find it difficult to deal with disagreement or confrontation in real life, the impact of this will be magnified ten fold on line. The combination of anonymity and distance from the recipient of abusive behaviour – ‘the on line disinhibition effect’ – often results in an increase in the intensity of people’s reactions.

Know what you are dealing with

The increase in intensity of reaction is of course a two way street. What you perceive as abuse or harassment, may be a reflection of your own strong feelings about a topic and your resistance to being challenged, particularly if the challenge is made in a blunt or aggressive way.  As much of interaction via social media is written, a significant part of necessary information we need to understand another’s intent is lost; most particularly tone of voice and facial expressions. It is not surprising therefore that the nuance of a discussion suffers. Combine this with what appears to be the natural human predisposition to discern threat where none exists and it is not difficult to understand why so many on line engagements go sour so quickly.

I think problems with on line communications involve 4 broad categories of people, and its important to try and identify which is which, as this will inform the remedy you chose.

  • The Trolls – the true dark side of social media are those who have no genuine wish to communicate but instead gain satisfaction or sense of purpose from abusing others.
  • Ineffective communicators –  those who genuinely wish to communicate but who are overwhelmed by emotion or circumstances that they cannot do so effectively.
  • Ineffective response to challenge – those who are particularly sensitive to challenge and react accordingly.
  • Basic misunderstanding – those who would have had little difficulty in communicating face to face but who misinterpret each other’s motivations on line due to absence of social cues.

 

But protect yourself

Criminal remedies

If the behaviour on line is serious enough to make you afraid for your safety then inform the police. Recent initiatives indicate that the police hopefully understand the need to engage more effectively with internet ‘hate crimes’ but we are still all finding our way and the responses of various police forces may vary in speed and effectiveness.

Harassment is both a criminal offence and a civil action under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The police can ask offenders to sign ‘Police Information Notices’ or ‘Harassment Warning Notices’ to show in possible future legal proceedings that a suspect was aware that their behaviour would count as harassment.

In general, ‘harassment’ is behaviour that a reasonable person would agree would cause you distress and alarm. The offence of harassment occurs where:

  • there has been a “course of conduct” (not just one event); and
  • the perpetrator knows or ought to know that their conduct amounts to harassment.

The police can also consider the Malicious Communications Act 1988 but as the age of that Act suggests, it wasn’t drafted with social media/online harassment in mind and is not a particularly useful tool.  See this guidance from the CPS about prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media.

 

Some strategies to deal with behaviour that probably isn’t criminal

If the behaviour you are worried about however, is not so serious that it is likely the police will consider it a  criminal offence, then you have to make a judgment call about what is going on and what you are going to do about it.

Have you considered the intensity of your own reaction to an on line challenge and are confident that others would agree that the other’s behaviour is unacceptable? For example, they use foul language, derogatory terms or repeatedly contact you after being asked to refrain. Being subjected to this is emotionally draining and often very upsetting. You owe it to yourself to set and enforce boundaries to protect your own wellbeing.

I suggest the following strategies

Ignoring

This is often the most effective strategy for a wide range of offensive on line behaviour. Many who troll do so to feed off the emotional response of their victims; the more upset you get and the more you show it, the better they like it. Ignore them and they will often move on to another victim.

I personally don’t like this strategy as it doesn’t sit well with my inherent combative tendencies and I don’t see why they should get away with it. However, in some circumstances ignoring is objectively not a sensible strategy, if it allows people to claim you do not take seriously criticism of your activities or integrity. You may have no choice but to engage.  I therefore I often try the strategy of polite/persistent engagement.

 

Polite/persistent engagement

This has proved remarkably effective over the years. The true troll will get bored or annoyed very quickly and move on. Those who have genuine motivation to engage but who have been temporarily swept away by the intensity of their own reactions, can often respond well to this and I have managed to form some relationships of at least grudging mutual respect by this method.

As Lindy West comments

I feed trolls. Not always, not every troll, but when I feel like it—when I think it will make me feel better—I talk back. I talk back because the expectation is that when you tell a woman to shut up, she should shut up. I reject that. I talk back because it’s fun, sometimes, to rip an abusive dummy to shreds with my friends. I talk back because my mental health is my priority—not some troll’s personal satisfaction. I talk back because it emboldens other women to talk back online and in real life, and I talk back because women have told me that my responses give them a script for dealing with monsters in their own lives. And, most importantly, I talk back because internet trolls are not, in fact, monsters. They are human beings—and I don’t believe that their attempts to dehumanize me can be counteracted by dehumanizing them.

But its time consuming and requires patience. You are going to need to be confident that you can do it otherwise you are simply increasing the burden on you.

 

Refer on to other agencies

If its getting bad, you have the option to refer a complaint to the social media provider. For information about Facebook complaints procedures, see here; for information about Twitter see here.

I have never tried this, however, anecdotes from those who have, suggest that this isn’t going to be a very effective or swift remedy.  Is there anyone you can raise a complaint with – such as the moderator of a forum discussion or the administrator of a Facebook page?

(EDIT – I have now tried this and complained to Twitter. My complaint has so far been ignored so I am now even less confident this route will have any success generally. Twitter, in particular is a social media platform that appears to elevate ‘freedom of speech’ above all else, even when that ‘speech’ is designed to do little else but cause alarm and distress).

Some professions – such as barristers, solicitors and social workers – are ‘regulated professions’ which means you could complain directly to their regulatory body about their behaviour on line, if of course they are identifiable. For more information about such complaints, see this post.

Civil law remedies

You have the option of applying for an injunction/damages under the Protection from Harassment Act or seeking to persuade the court that you have suffered defamation.

You will need to be very confident that it’s worth it. No legal action should be undertaken without serious thought. It will bring with it financial and emotional consequences, even if you win. I discuss defamation in more detail in this post. Its worth quoting again from Mr Justice Warby:

Defamatory imputations can cause injury to feelings which is out of all proportion to the harm they cause to reputation. That, so far as the earlier publications are concerned, is this case. So far as the later publications are concerned, and more generally, Mr Economou has made the error of seeing this case from his own perspective as a victim, paying too much attention to the impact on him and his feelings, and giving insufficient consideration to the other perspectives, indeed the other rights and interests, that demand and deserve consideration.

As I know now from bitter personal experience, even sending a few letters from your solicitors to theirs is going to cost thousands of pounds.  The cost to your emotional welfare may be yet higher as even contemplating such legal action can absorb much of your time and energy. Don’t even start unless you have a clear idea of what it is likely to cost you. Trying – and failing – in court can also carry the risk that you have to pay some or all of the costs of the other side.

Getting evidence

If you are being harassed on line hopefully you can get screen shots’of any abusive posts/tweets etc. ‘Screenshot’  is the term used to for taking a picture of whatever is on the screen of your computer/phone/tablet etc. You don’t need any special software as all devices/operating systems should let you take a screenshot.

However, it may be that a screenshot by itself will NOT be considered good enough evidence. You will need to be able to show that the screenshot is genuine and you haven’t tampered with it. One way to do this is make sure that you have the URL for each screenshot. This is an acronym for ‘Uniform Resource Locator’ or a ‘web address’. It specifies a location on a computer network and a mechanism for retrieving it. Or you can use the web archive/wayback machine to save the URL.

I am grateful for the advice of one reader ‘Mr X’ who has provided the following advice to help you get useful evidence about any online harassment:

http://getfireshot.com/using.php#editing << that is the program I use for my screenshots (Fireshot) – it’s a bit hard to explain in an email how to take the screenshots. I basically find the tweet I want to capture by clicking on it, when you do that, at the top in the browser is the tweet url (https://www.whatevertweet.url etc) use fireshot to capture the tweet, in fireshot there are tools, I use “capture visible area”, then use “crop” tool, so I end up with just the tweet, then I highlight the tweet url (which is on your browser window), right click “copy”, go to the screenshot and choose where I want to put the url text, right click “paste” – then I save it. It took me a while to get the hang of this program – now it takes me a few seconds to do the screenshots as I’ve used this program for 7yrs!!
The web archive/wayback machine is what takes the time – this is the link https://archive.org/web/web.php – if you look towards the right hand side of the page there is “save page now” and the box where you paste the url link into, the webarchive starts to save the page “as is” – once it’s saved there is a new url which has “webarchive etc etc whatever url” – sometimes it can take up to 4mins to save one tweet, you can’t put multiple urls at once, they have to be done individually.
I don’t know what operating system your computer is, but there is a Windows feature called “snipping tool” – I use that sometimes when I don’t need to put the url’s on screenshots.

Take care of yourself

Don’t engage in on line debate/discussion if you are feeling particularly angry or upset about something. Take a break, check that you are not tired or hungry. Don’t make any quick decisions, don’t respond hastily –  unless of course it is so serious you need to call the police. Don’t use offensive language or bring yourself down to their level. it is very difficult for outside agencies to ‘un pick’ who is the main offender when both parties are engaging with each other using abusive terms.

Further reading

Lindy West ‘What happened when I confronted my cruellest troll’ 

Anna Merlan ‘ The cops don’t care about violent online threats. What do we do now?’

The Guardian Experience ‘I was an Internet Troll’.

Google’s response to a defamation claim

Psychology Today ‘No Comment: 3 Rules for Dealing with Internet Trolls‘.

Inforrm article about the case of Smith v Unknown Defendants [2016] EWCH 1775 ‘Defamed by Persons Unknown’. The court awarded damages in defamation of £10,000 – but did Mr Smith ever get his money?

Article by NZ barrister Steven Price ‘The Defamation Minefield – 12 Steps to help you avoid it’

What you need to know about gathering social media evidence 

The National Stalking Helpline 0808 802 0300

Fascinating article by J Nathan Matias about what Victorian efforts to deal with food adulteration can teach us about developing tools for dealing with on line abuse.

Online harassment research guide – research on understanding and responding to online harassment.

Growing social media backlash among young people – report in the Guardian 2017

Excellent Twitter thread on why this platform tends to shy away from dealing with issues of abuse on line

https://twitter.com/yonatanzunger/status/914605545490857984

Care proceedings: UWE Research into the pre-proceedings protocol

A research team at the University of the West of England  (‘UWE’) have been conducting some research into the pre-proceedings protocols introduced by HHJ De Haas QC in Cheshire & Merseyside in July 2012 and by HHJ Wildblood QC in July 2013.

The Team reported to the President of the Family Division in March 2014 and wrote a short article for Family Law which was published in July 2015. The research included talking with professional stakeholders and analysing raw HMCTS data and Children’s Services’ files.

The Team would like to update their material generally and would be very interested to talk to any parents or young people who have experience of, or views about, the pre-proceedings protocol in care proceedings.

 

If you would like to talk about your experiences, please contact Emma Whewell <[email protected]>  who can give you more information, including information sheets and consent forms if you wish to be part of the research.

Who Guards the Guards? Expert witnesses and abuse of power

I am grateful for this post from one of our readers, who shares her own experiences of being assessed by an expert witness and her concerns about those in positions of authority who abuse their positions of trust. She raises some important issues regarding potential consequences that can flow from a relationship where the balance of power is weighted so heavily against the parent. 

I AM therefore I CAN (with apologies to Descartes)

I recently read a blog post on Twitter by @suesspiciousminds. It was about an expert, a clinical psychologist who had misrepresented comments made by a mother and a child in public law care proceedings. In his blog, @suessspiciousminds writes:
“I am genuinely shocked by this. It undermines a lot of credibility of expert witnesses”

Sadly, I am not at all shocked by this. I was up against an expert in his field, a psychiatrist who not only assessed mothers facing care proceedings but who was also an expert witness. For reasons known only to himself, he wanted to have my children put up for adoption.

It started off with an allegation. A false one. My then husband and I had a row over money. We had two children aged 5 and 7 weeks. I was the only one earning at the time and under huge strain to get back to work as I was self-employed and we faced eviction. My husband had been promising for a while that a client would pay him. I found out it was a lie and so we rowed.
It was an almighty row – not physical but a lot of shouting. As he stormed out of the house, I shouted at him not to bother coming back until there was money. An hour or so later, the police came knocking on my door. My initial thought was that my husband must have died in a car accident, such was the speed with which he drove off. I was wrong. The policemen wanted me to come to the station to answer some questions. They would not tell me anything else. My 7 week old baby was already in the car seat asleep as I had intended to drive to see the landlord and plead with him not to evict us.

We were put in an interview room where we stayed all day. Every so often a police officer would walk in the room and tell me that my husband was doing his statement, that when he had finished, they would ask for mine. I remember not being worried. I was desperate to speak to the landlord and saw this as a hurdle to a more pressing problem. My husband lied. It was what he did and they would see it for what it was. At the time I did not know what ‘it’ was.

I started to get anxious after 3pm as my older child was due to finish school. It was all taken care of, the police officer told me. Arrangements had been made for my child to be picked up but they would not tell me what those arrangements were or how much longer I would be. They just kept repeating the mantra: When my husband had finished with his statement, they would ask me for mine. By this point I was getting scared. Why was his statement taking so long? What was he saying? He lies, that’s what he does I kept repeating to myself. They’ll find out.

At maybe around 5 to 6 pm, a police officer came into the interview room that my baby and I had been kept in all day. He told me that my baby was going to be checked over at hospital. I stood up as I fully expected to go too but one of the officers put his hand on my chest and pushed me roughly into a chair.
“You’re not going anywhere” he said.

At this point I became really alarmed as I watched my 7 week old baby being taken away by an officer as the other one kept me firmly in the chair. I started crying, “I need to go with my baby, I’m breastfeeding” I was still sobbing when some moments later the door opened. Two people walked into the room, looked at me crying, went back out. I could hear whispering behind the door. When it did open, I was sectioned under the Mental Health Act. I still had no idea what my husband had said.

In the psychiatric ward, I asked for a solicitor and a breast pump. I was told I could ask for a solicitor at 9 am the next morning but was denied a breast pump. “You won’t be needing it where you’re going” the midwife said to me.

By 11am the following morning, I had a solicitor to appeal the detention, a visit from a social worker, a family solicitor and a breast pump. I then found out my husband had alleged I had thrown our 7 week old baby across the room, that I had a history of severe psychiatric illness including schizophrenia. It was actually my sister who was schizophrenic. I also found out that my children had been taken to a foster carer at a secret location as I was deemed too dangerous to know their whereabouts. I asked why the children weren’t with their father. The social worker told me that anyone who leaves a 7 week old baby with someone who has just thrown them across the room was just as guilty.

I was under 24 hour observation to spot signs of aggression and mental illness for 2 weeks, until the appeal hearing. The hearing took less than 10 minutes. They had acted on information giving to them by my husband and they had failed to verify. My 7 week old baby was healthy and well looked after and I did not have a mental illness nor showed any signs of aggression.

End of story? Not quite.

I was told that proceedings had started and it would take about a year before the children could come home to me. I would need to be assessed with the children. The Guardian insisted that I be sent to an extremely expensive residential assessment centre which was run by a highly qualified psychiatrist who was also an expert witness to the court. The children and I would be there for a month.

The psychiatrist lived next to the assessment centre but, apart from watching him jogging, or seeing him when he came into the kitchen to use the washing machine, we hardly ever saw him. It was not until about the 3rd day that I had a ‘session’ with him. I walked into his office and the first thing he said was “You don’t like me, do you?”

I was thrown by this comment and all I could say was; “I don’t think it’s a question of whether I like you or not, I think it’s a question of whether we can work together.” Apparently it was not the answer he was looking for. Observations were done by the (largely) unqualified staff and he would then look over their notes and make his assessments from those notes and the weekly sessions he had with the residents. In my next session he spent the whole time telling me that my husband had not lied and that I had made it all up, refusing to believe me but then ending the session with “If it’s too good to be true it’s not true”. I felt as though he was trying to catch me out, as though there were answers he wanted to hear that I was not giving him. I could only answer as I felt but it felt wrong.

To pass the time, I baked bread and would bake a loaf daily for all the residents to share. One morning a staff member told me that he had cut the loaf in half and taken the half with him. That was the day he chose to keep coming in the kitchen – something he never did. He was obviously expecting a reaction from me so I told him that I had made the bread for the residents and that if he wanted some he should have asked as it meant there wasn’t enough to go round. Perhaps, not surprisingly, that did not go down well. I failed ‘the test’ again when he came in from his customary jog and put his running shorts in the washing machine. He had left his phone and car keys in the pocket and I burst out laughing.

I later found out that it was all deliberate (perhaps not the car keys/phone). He liked to press the residents’ buttons to see how they would react under pressure. This would include giving us various tasks. Asking us to do things when the children were hungry or upset or tired. He would probably justify it as making sure the mothers could cope with day to day life. I got a feeling that he had more than a sadistic streak to him.

The Court hearing was heart stopping. This ‘expert’ psychiatrist diagnosed me as of below average intelligence and it was his recommendation that my children would be best placed if they were put up for adoption. The Guardian agreed with him. The Local Authority did not.
On the day, of the hearing, the Guardian, Local Authority, and the lawyers had a meeting which excluded my solicitor. I remember my barrister, who had caught a train from London so arrived after everyone else, walking straight into their meeting saying something about not having a meeting without him.

I believe that in that meeting, the Guardian was trying to convince the Local Authority that my children should be put up for adoption. In Court, the Local Authority did not agree with the Guardian and the ‘expert’. The Judge agreed with the Local Authority.

I came so close to losing my children permanently based on I don’t know what reasoning. What I do know is that there are people in positions of power, who are trusted by the Court, in their capacity as experts in their field, who exploit and abuse that power. In the case of this psychiatrist, children were removed from mothers he diagnosed as mentally ill, as unable to parent. How many of these mothers were, in fact, capable?

Bullies and abusers use their position of power to intimidate those who, often, are unable to fight for themselves. I was incredibly lucky that a social worker was able to stand up to not just the Guardian but an expert’s opinion. But where this is not the case, who is there to keep us safe from the experts?

Freedom of Speech v Barbara Hewson

 

On May 25th the internet magazine Spiked published an article by Barbara Hewson  – The family courts make a mockery of justice‘. She published a tweet with a link to that article. I saw this and attempted to enter into discussion with her on this public forum, as one of the family lawyers she had dismissed en masse as ‘collusive’ and ‘incompetent’. Her response was immediate and aggressive, she told me to go to bed and ‘blocked’ my account. I responded in manner that was mocking and rude. I am sorry about that. It was fun at the time but it wasn’t constructive and it did nothing to bridge the gap between our positions.

I published a more reflective response via my blog on May 27th ‘The woeful state of our debate about the family courts part 7: Barbara Hewson’

If I thought Ms Hewson’s initial response to my tweets was bizarre, what followed this blog post was even worse. She made two formal complaints to my Chambers and – astonishingly – directly tweeted a number of prominent Jewish lawyers and journalists to inform them I was an Anti-Semite. She later deleted those tweets – suggesting she realized she had gone too far. But of course, on the internet nothing is ever really deleted. 

 

Freedom of speech – not just for the speech you agree with.

However, a much more serious issue emerged from our unedifying ‘spat’. This was Ms Hewson’s determined efforts to reduce the audience for my blog post. To understand my concern, it is important to note that Ms Hewson is not your typical abusive keyboard warrior, with limited following or influence.  Not only is she a practising barrister, she is also a prominent contributor for Spiked.

Spiked describe their ‘mission statement’ in this way (emphasis added):

It’s the publication that puts the case for human endeavour, intellectual risk-taking, exploration, excellence in learning and art, and freedom of speech with no ifs and buts, against the myriad miserabilists who would seek to wrap humans in red tape, dampen down our daring, restrain our thoughts, and police our speech.

Well said. If ‘freedom of speech’ is reduced to ‘freedom to say things I agree with’, it is no freedom at all. Sadly, Ms Hewson does not seem to share Spiked’s enthusiasm for freedom of speech. She alleged that my blog post was both ‘inaccurate’ and ‘defamatory’. However, and interestingly, she didn’t make those allegations directly to me or request that I amend the post or take it down.

Shortly after publication of my post on Friday 27th May I sent a tweet with a link, as is my normal practice. It was retweeted by a number of others.

Ms Hewson sent an email to those who retweeted on Bank Holiday Sunday May 29th, demanding that they ‘un-do’ their retweet. When some of the recipients asked – not unreasonably – to be informed what exactly was defamatory about my post, Ms Hewson not only refused to give details but replied to say that she would consider joining them in her proposed legal action against me. And this could carry consequences in terms of costs.

Entirely unsurprisingly, that threat worked and my tweet was subsequently ‘un-retweeted’.

Then, in the second of her formal complaints to my Chambers, Ms Hewson declared that she was giving serious consideration to informing the police of my activities on Twitter.

After I had picked myself up from the floor, to which I had fallen laughing, I got quite angry. This was after all quite an effective tactic of intimidation. Not because she frightened me, but because she was now putting my Chambers to considerable annoyance and fuss in attempting to sort out a complaint that – in my view – was without substance and which should never have been made. The suggestion that anything in my conduct on line or elsewhere merited the involvement of the police was absurd. That the suggestion was made by someone in her position is very worrying.

The Streisand effect

Ms Hewson’s efforts at indirect censorship did not have the desired effect of keeping my views out of circulation. She seems unhappily ignorant of the Streisand effect, where there is a direct correlation between the efforts you put in to keeping something hidden and the extra publicity for the hidden thing you generate by those very efforts.

Between May 27th and June 2nd that ‘defamatory’ post was the most popular on my website. And people weren’t just glancing at it – they were reading it. The post was seen 553 times during that period and the average time spent on the page was 6 minutes and 16 seconds. My original tweet containing a link to the blog post has now been seen 2,043 times and is my third ‘top tweet’ for the month of May. To put this in context, my tweets usually get about 300 impressions. The blog post has been ‘shared’ on line 242 times.

I have no idea how that compares to the analytics for Spiked on line. But its pretty good for my site.

Through out all of this I remain in the dark about what is defamatory about what I wrote. I suspect it is not that Ms Hewson is unwilling to tell me – but that she is unable to tell me. Because my original blog post isn’t defamatory. And I am more than happy to defend it in open court.

 

Debate and discussion – now dead in the water?

But what on earth are we coming to when the honest expression of an opinion about something significant – the family court system – meets with this response? This means that the debate about the family justice system isn’t merely ‘woeful’ as I have long feared, but is dead in the water.

For those who seek a public platform to publish and promote their views, bravery must go hand in hand with good judgment and reflection. Otherwise ‘bravery’ can easily slip into bullying cruelty on line or even worse – into a reckless assault upon our essential freedoms. The greater the status and influence of the person seeking to restrict others’ freedom of speech, the greater the danger that person poses.

Of course our freedoms are not limitless. The rights of your fist end where my nose begins. We have to engage in constant and sensitive recallibrations of our freedoms and our responsibilities and how they intertwine.

But I suggest that any attempts to limit the activities of your fist vis a vis my nose should come from the law , not the wrath of an individual. The criminal law can deal with threats and harassment, the civil law can deal with defamation. A further avenue for those of us in regulated professions can be to make complaint to the appropriate regulatory body.

Respect for essential freedoms cannot turn simply on whether a particular individual is upset and offended. The evil consequences of that are very clear. I agree Ms Hewson’s right to be wrong must be protected. I have disagreed with her – not attempted to silence her or get her arrested.  But sadly, it seems she does not accord me the same respect and seeks to erode my freedom of speech in a particularly heavy handed and unpleasant way.

Bullying isn’t great – but hypocrisy is worse

Ms Hewson’s attempts to intimidate do not deflect me. At the time of writing it’s June 17th (and at the time of publication it’s August 13th 2016) and I haven’t been arrested or received any court papers, so I will assume her threats are empty. But I also reasonably assume that others of less robust temperament in my shoes over the last few weeks would have been very frightened and distressed. Even a cursory search of her name on Twitter shows that many others already have been frightened and distressed by her behavior on line.

Spiked may value this kind of behaviour from Ms Hewson as adding to their ‘edgy’ reputation. But I hope not. Rather, I hope that this whole sorry tale gives them some pause for thought about exactly whom they wish to support as a contributor to their site.

The family justice system impacts on the lives of many. It tries to protect the vulnerable against the imposition of unfair or abusive interference with their private lives, from either the State or other individuals. That it functions well is necessary. That it often falls short of what we need is sadly clear and worthy of debate.

No one has the right to try and stifle open and honest debate about something so important. Not least someone who claims to support freedom of speech.

I can understand, in a world where humans routinely make decisions to bomb children and hospitals or permit the mentally ill to buy military grade assault rifles to more easily murder cartoonists or gay people, my ruffled feathers over this may seem to some quite unimportant.

And you are entitled to that view – I won’t threaten you or telephone your boss if you express it. But I think it is important to challenge this kind of behaviour. Because this is how our essential freedoms are eroded, little by little and drop by drop. Until when the time comes that we wake up to what we have lost, there may be nothing left at all to defend.

Are Victims of Violence Also Victims of the Family Court?

I am grateful for this post from our regular contributor ‘Sam’ considering how the current system fails to deal adequately with issues of violence in relationships, putting victims and children at risk. What can we do to improve?

Recently the tragic case of Ellie Butler hit the media yet again. Despite having a history of violence Ellie’s father Ben Butler was exonerated by the family court and Ellie was left in his care resulting in her murder. As a result of this Sarah asked me to write something to put the jigsaw pieces together even though it was of course very close to home to me as any regular reader of this web site will know. I have banged my head against a brick wall for a number of years, firstly trying to escape from my abuser, then trying to be heard by agencies including the police and finally family court proceedings in the High Court, which left my ex husband with my children and myself on supervised contact. I have not seen one of my children who lives with him for over two years in breach of the court order. Once again even though he had a history of violence including threats to kill. Will it happen again to another child?

It is inevitable.

Crystal Ball Gazing

No I don’t have a crystal ball, but as well as my personal experience , I have connections with a considerable number of woman both on social media and in real life. Those of us who are parents have all have been through the family court system either in private or public law proceedings and we tell similar versions of same story. Hopefully this article goes some way into unpacking those stories and even start some change in awareness.

In 1971 the first women’s refuge opened in the UK. Unfortunately in 2016 we still need refuges despite the availably of court orders intended to keep the perpetrator away from the family home.

Anna is currently in a refuge, she fled from her allegedly abusive husband leaving her toddler behind. They were a respectable family on the surface, regular churchgoers and he was always with her, not in the pub like some men. Chris is now valiantly holding the fort as a single father, he has much sympathy within the community, where he likes to talk about how his wife couldn’t even cook a decent meal he had to teach her, was never interested in the baby from the day he was born. The accusations of abuse have come out of the blue, he knows nothing about abuse. Of course she was miserable when she was with him you could see that , rumour has it she may be mentally ill. If you probe a little deeper though it turns out that Anna and Chris had moved miles away from friends and family because a business he had set up had failed spectacularly. The toddler is clingy and far too quiet, though of course this delights the community who see him as a well behaved child not a damaged child. The family court has awarded residence to Chris.

Not only outsiders, but victims themselves do not initially see what is happening as domestic abuse, there is very little awareness , this both prolongs the abuse and leads to a time lag in reporting to the authorities.On average high-risk victims live with domestic abuse for 2.6 years before getting help – see safelives.org.uk.

What is domestic abuse?

The UK government’s definition of domestic violence is “any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. The abuse can encompass, but is not limited to psychological, physical, sexual, financial, emotional.”

It is very rarely just one of them, Donna is gay, she realised she had been subject to domestic violence after listening to heterosexual women discussing what had happened to them. In fact she had been in two abusive relationships, in one she was physically abused including being thrown against a wall as well as financially abused and kicked out of the home she owned, with her abuser changing the locks.In another she was subject to what could be termed coercive control , refused all affection including sex, being put down and once again financially abused. She has never reported to the police or as far as I know told anyone outside of her circle of friends. She suffers from very low self esteem.

Domestic violence shrinks your world, however if you are already marginalized , poverty, disability, care leaver, spouse of someone respectable etc firstly you are far more likely to be a victim and secondly you will struggle even more to get help.

 

Just leave ?

85% of victims sought help five times on average from professionals in the year before they got effective help to stop the abuse. It has long been documented that women living with domestic violence are anxious about the involvement of social services.

Examples of poor practice whilst living with abuse included:

  • social workers visiting the family home to talk about domestic violence when the perpetrator was present;
  • women being told to leave with nowhere to go to;
  • the perpetrator not being held accountable for his actions; and
  • social workers attributing men’s violence to ‘cultural differences’

After leaving the concerns about social work practice included:

  • being made to go to meetings with the perpetrator;
  • the perpetrator continuing to make allegations about them which then had to be investigated;and
  • being held responsible for his behaviour.

Social services were making me go to meetings with this man. Solace wrote them a letter saying
that he’s high-risk, and in no circumstances should I have to attend meetings… They didn’t
listen… He just flew up off the chair, near enough hitting the table, and went to go for me. And
the social worker had to get in the middle (48, W4).
The dad hit the kids when they were on a visit to him. Social services were called in. We were
all interviewed, and he wasn’t. And it was signed off. But it went on for weeks on end. And I was
made to feel like the perpetrator (FG, W1).Even where women made complaints about poor practice, this did not make a difference.

As soon as you make a complaint against them they make your life hell (48, W3).

Many women expended considerable time and energy battling ‘the system’, and over the course of the study began to comment that their lives were now constrained by structural barriers. Some were even more explicit, arguing that they had swapped one form of control (by the abuser) for another – by the legal, welfare and housing systems.

You’ve battled to keep yourself safe; the children safe… and then there’s another battle with
housing, battle with the courts… it’s a constant battle for everything (FG, W1).

Thirteen long years, that’s how it feels, sort of ten years with him and three years of just battling
the system. You know I’m tired of it, just tired, and I want it to be over (36, W3).

Where women had the support of an advocate, usually via Solace, responses from other agencies improved, but our findings suggest there may be complacency about the extent of change there has been in agency responses.

Leah’s story: Leah is a professional woman,very talented in her field. Her perpetrator is also well thought of, he was in the forces and has several times been commended for bravery. They have a child with special needs. Leah is scared stiff of going to family court despite having won a civil action regarding his abuse. The CAFCASS officer has seen this report but still refuses to recognise the extent of the abuse nor will the police take criminal action. Leah like myself finds that agencies do not look behind the outer image a perpetrator presents, many are superficially charming, humorous,hard working and generous. Worse still agencies side with the perpetrator putting both children and victim at risk.

 

Family Court

Cases in the family court , like the one were Ellie Butler was handed back into her parents care are decided on the balance of probabilities, that is something is more likely to happened than not or conversely not more likely to happened than not.

Suzie’s story: Suzie was never physically beaten by her ex husband , he had however psychologically abused her, but had called the police when he punched one of her friends, she was fitted with secure locks and was seen as a high risk. During private proceedings, the social worker and CAFCASS both agreed that he should only have supervised contact. He wanted over nights or no contact at all. The judge ordered overnight contact. The children hated going, as their father left them to fend for themselves and got drunk. He paid no maintenance . Once he got into a new relationship he stopped seeing them altogether. Unfortunately his new girlfriend not only was psychologically abused she ended up being stabbed. Should the judge have weighed the case better?

How to stop another child dying

The short answer is you can’t, it is inevitable, but steps can be taken to lessen the chances that another father with a history of violence will kill his own child.

Knowledge is the final piece of the jigsaw. Firstly and most importantly victims do not have the knowledge to recognise signs of abuse when it is happening to them, normally it is not until they get some awareness and recover some self esteem that they do actually realise the extent of the control the perpetrator had over them. Being a victim is the equivalent of floundering into quicksand, you wriggle, shout for help and when none comes you stay still and quiet because every action makes matters far worse.

Professionals also need knowledge, especially being aware that domestic violence is multi faceted and do need to stop victim blaming. The victim needs a comfort blanket not a telling off, once they feel safe they will then be able to reflect, they can’t whilst they are still in fight or flight mode. There also needs huge awareness around the likely impact on the victim’s immediate presentation, they are going to seem unstable initially but once they are clear of the life threatening situation they have been living with they will get well.

Abusers do give out clues, even by watching them walk down the street with their family can be eye opening.

There are systematic failures of sharing of knowledge and evidence in this post Saville era. Police forces do not share reported incidents of child abuse unless there has been an arrest. In my view the failure to have specialist domestic violence courts adds to the problem, some judges simply do not understand, or want to.

Lastly and most importantly there needs to be a change in the public perception towards domestic violence, it needs to be as unacceptable as drink driving and as high profile.

Panel Discussions at CPConf2016

 

This is a partial transcript typed up by Sarah Phillimore from the audio recording of the discussion at the end of CPConf2016 which took place at Birmingham on June 3rd 2016. Some parts are incomplete as the recording was not always audible, but hopefully it represents a reasonably good transcription of what was said.

The discussions were interesting and wide ranging but some clear themes emerged: what we are doing now doesn’t work. We need to change our approach and allow social workers and parents to form relationships of trust. We can’t ignore the impact of poverty and lack of access to services as part of the problem. Suggestions for improvement were to support social workers to feel safe to acknowledge when things weren’t working, bolster the role and independence of the IRO, consider an end to rationing of services, offer more support to young care leavers and all children generally, provide tools to learn about good parenting as part of the national curriculum.

 

PANEL MEMBERS

Debbie Singleton co-chair of the Association of Lawyers for Children (ALC)

Lisa Wolfe – psychologist

Dr Devine – academic and barrister at UWE

Anna Gupta – Senior Lecturer at Royal Holloway

Cathy Ashley – Chief Executive of the Family Rights Group

Brid Featherstone – Professor at Huddersfield University

Andy Bilson – Academic

Lucy Reed – barrister and chair of the Transparency Project

Jerry Lonsdale – McKenzie Friend and activist

Louise Tickle – journalist

Maggie Siviter – social worker

Surviving Safeguarding – parent and activist

Sarah Phillimore – barrister and trustee of the Transparency Project

 

Brid Featherstone

There are two things I would like to talk about. First, the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) has launched an inquiry into role of social workers in adoption. BASW is now the main professional body across the UK representing social workers – it’s a particularly important organization, given the collapse of the College of Social Work. It has commissioned an inquiry with focus on ethics and human rights. Anna (Gupta) and I bid to run inquiry independently and were awarded bid.

Why? We are interested in looking across the UK and the focus on adoption and what it is doing on practice of social workers. We are defining ethics as not just what social workers do but what they ought to do – they ought to take control of their own ethics and asking are they the right thing? We are giving a forum to people to comment on whether the role of social workers in adoption is ethical. In terms of human rights, we are really concerned to look at whether all families are getting the economic, political and social rights they need.

It will be all up on www.basw.co.uk, and also an email inbox for you to write into us. The way you can directly contribute is to the call for evidence. You can write to us and tell us about your experience. It is open to all, all the people in this room basically to give their views. It has been approved ethically by University of Huddersfield so there are strict safeguards. We will be careful and thoughtful about what you tell. Us. Particularly interested to give social workers the opportunity to talk in anonymised way. We will close call for evidence at end of September.

Will also talk to young people, lawyers and judges. Do come to talk to Anna and I.

Second thing: the Children and Social Work Bill going through Parliament. I speak as former social worker; I was here last year (at CPConf2015) and know how worried you are about what’s going on in social work. Some provisions in Bill that may make our lives even worse. Worst-case scenario, Government will take back regulation of social workers under its control – not just who can practice but the content of courses. There could be a lot of control of what we can and can’t teach.

Worries that this might make things worse. Lots of lobbying and campaigning. Look at website of Community Care and Celtic Knot article. Raising awareness.

Cathy Ashley CE FRG

We are instrumental in introducing family group conferences in this country – now ¾ of LA have some family group conference service of some kind. Some small some larger, but its about giving families more control about drawing up plan to address joint concerns with social worker.

The (Children and Social Work) bill itself is quite a hotch potch and it is worth having a look. Because it is a hotch potch it means the scope of the bill is actually quite broad. We are drawing up amendments under Your Family Your Voice Alliance (YFYV) in ways it can be improved in relations to parents and families.

I would be very keen to get your support as individuals or organizations – the more that endorse YFYV the more likely the amendments are to be listened to. And to the lawyers out there if you would like to help us draft I would very much welcome that!

Focus of amendments – care leavers who are pregnant or young parents, amend so there is a duty in relation to advice, assessment and support, in relation to their parenting role. This comes out of work we have been doing with young parents whose children are at risk of being removed, even if there is support for them as care leavers, not recognizing they also need support to keep their children with them.

Second, we are wanting to push that fostering for adoption is not used in section 20 cases, so you don’t get situations which are currently occurring when a parent has no legal advice, no judicial scrutiny but child is placed with potential adopter and it is much harder for parent to get child back due to status quo issues. In terms of ensuring fair process, essential it is not used re accommodated children.

Third point, we would particularly value your advice is that we want to try to push an amendment that is about ensuring parents are offered support if child is removed from them. That is particularly pertinent to Karen Broadhurst’s research that shows that children are being sequentially removed from new mothers in the system and the space between pregnancies reduces number of children removed.

Amendments re wider kinship care and special guardianship – should be equivalence between support for adopters and special guardians who are also permanently raising a child. We know that it is not perfect for adopters, but challenge idea that depending on which door you go through depends on support you get.

We support extensions of staying put to children in residential care. The Government is suggesting a local offer to care leavers, we think it should be national but other organizations are leading that. The other thing – clauses 15-18 (of the bill) around ‘freedoms and flexibilities’ for LA, in the way it is drafted gives the Sec of State huge powers to exempt LA from primary legislation and regulation and we think that is seriously worrying in terms of family rights and the way it is drafted needs very serious amendment. Hasn’t had that much attention. Talks of transfer of functions to trusts. The way it is currently drafted could end up with LA being exempt from core legislation.

Georgina CEO of Whistleblowers UK – Thank you to organizers of the conference. If the child protection isn’t fit for purpose where do we go from here? Heard input of people worried about parents and children but what are you doing to protect yourselves. How many of you in this room who are social workers … when something doesn’t go well and doesn’t go right and you need to speak out how do you trust the system. If the culture is “I want to say something but I can’t I will lose my job” how can you protect parents and children? No mechanism to get redress. My question to all of you is, going forward, what does ‘good ‘ look like. If you don’t feel safe, how can you protect others?

Maggie Siviter – you are right, echoes what I said this morning. It does worry me. Where is the learning, where are the collective voices of social workers united with parents and children? Often we echo and reflect what is being said. Why aren’t we heard before we have to blow the whistle, before the system harms people? I don’t think we are particularly well looked after as professionals. I don’t think we are trusted. We are in institution that militates against us being trusted. I have been ‘set up’ against a parent just doing my job. Been allocated a child I have to assess with sole intention of removing child. How am I going to be able to support that family to keep child. Sets me up in conflict with family immediately.

When Victoria (Teggin) was talking earlier about mediation I know from experience, the hostility has started before mediation. I tweeted that when you are trying to protect a child the best way to do that is to work with the family. When you get to point that this isn’t working for children you already have family on board – frank open relationship. Where to now? It takes really skills and experience. I don’t think we provide our newly qualified SW with environment to do that. Don’t think we bring in skilled practitioners. Families say I am not having that social worker, and managers saying you are not getting another one. Where does that leave families? That is actively working against what family needs. We need a root and branch reform of social work profession.

“Social Work Tutor” is joining in discussion with that about reforming social worker. Social workers need to take ourselves by the scruff of the neck.

Audience member raises question about IRO – What is role of IRO – that is good question. Children historically left languishing in care for years with no one asking if we needed to look after child. Reviews brought in to ask question every six months. IRO has statutory responsibility to chair LAC meetings as they are independent of reviewing process. I have issues with independence bit as I have come into conflict when I wore independence hat and got told to toe the party line.

Audience member – I was given ficitious address for an IRO.

Maggie Siviter – that is matter for complaint.

Being a whistle blower I know you can complain until blue in face but you won’t be heard.

Audience member – they tried to injunct me

MS I despair. Contact IROs directly

Audience member – you can’t get hold of IROs.

Lucy Reed – absence of IRO noticing problems in process is big recurring issue. I ask what lawful basis child removed and IRO doesn’t notice. Some good IROS out there but also some who didn’t notice and were criticized. Human Rights Act (HRA) claims against IROS – there is a real issue here, I suspect it will be coming up. Judges are discovering that dealing with HRA claims are causing listing issues. But they are important for all sorts of reasons.

Maggie Siviter – Isabelle Trowler quoted in Community Care as considering removing IROS – but they should be the backstop for all areas of child decision making. Come under quality assurance department in LA. I have frustration about lack of independence. I have big issues and fallen foul of requirement to subject care plans to scrutiny and I have been victimized for doing my job – big tension.

The independence is that which is granted, it is not inherent. Only way to get true independence is if LA is committed to letting IRO having a voice.

Jerry Londsdale – the regulations set out role of IRO, the LA duty to appoint.

Alice Twaite – how do we get beyond just talking about problems, how do we do better?

Lucy Reed – the fact we trending on Twitter and visibly talking – parents to social workers, and we are not lobbing things at each other, the fact that this is being seen is really important. It’s not the end, it’s the beginning.

Alice Twaite – is there a way for us to be more consistent in sharing information?

Sarah Phillimore – that is going to be the aim of ‘The Hub’ – we have to do better, we need a focus not just getting together once a year and going round in circles. This is such a multi discipline issue; if we don’t all come together we won’t have a solution. If you come here today assume you are interested in continuing conversation so please sign up.

Anna Gupta – it is also about austerity and the political context and we need to say this. It is not just up to social workers, they work in context and it is a really difficult time out there. We should not be cutting early years services. I was trying to find youth worker in Brixton – impossible. Youth services are decimated. Not working (APPLAUSE)

Audience member … Health Visitors have suffered as well. Necessary to have a key worker, somebody that they can work with and trust. We have race to bottom with lack of funding. Inward looking approach – we need to open out.

Lucy Reed – if people here who have points they want to make, we will host that on Transparency Project website. If we could get a collection of things that you found useful that would help.

Audience Member – on the point of austerity – I am an adoptive parent who went from being part of the solution to part of the problem Probably a million pounds spent on trying to break up my family. Not succeeded. What was needed was properly thought out respite and therapy. That’s all we needed. 1 million spent is a 20th of adoption support fund for the whole country. I don’t want to hear talk of not enough money.

Lucy Reed – investment in therapy in earlier stage will prevent costs – makes sense to put money in. Its how we get LA to put funds in at particular moment. Money is invested in wrong places (everyone is nodding) Early intervention needed.

Cathy Ashley – I am a bit Pollyannaish. I do think there are some LA senior managers who are really trying to do this differently. One of the things that can be an incredibly pessimistic environment that gives some hope it feels like an increasing number of children’s services recognizing this and looking at how you get children supported. Not the norm across the country I accept that and not the direction from central Government. But we can be ground down by the challenge that faces everyone in this room and families out there. I do think we need to be thinking through the Transparency Project, YFYV and a number of initiatives about how we work in a coalition to change the nature of the debate and show that not only the current way of doing things is punitive but it doesn’t work and is very costly and there are other ways of doing it that are more humane (APPLAUSE)

Student – how should society protect children – collectivist approach, or should we license parents?

Maggie Siviter- I think you have a point – not about licensing parents! But how we teach our children to become parents. How we encourage them to understand what their children will need. We don’t do that very well. Especially children who themselves come from vulnerable backgrounds, we don’t support them well to become parents. You ask valid question.

Brid Featherstone – I couldn’t disagree with you more! (Audience laughter) Last year I talked about our book, Re-Imagining Child protection. We are working on the social model. Want to get rid of term child protection. Start – what do families need to care safely and flourish – money housing, food friends, social capital. People will always suffer. But we start form basic. Don’t start from risk. The reason we are all here is that we have risk monster that is insatiable that we are feeding. Lets stop (APPLAUSE)

Dr Devine – where I am coming from I am a researcher. Trying to keep neutral stance, I see link. Should we be assessing people before they become parents? Link it back to some of comments earlier about austerity and rationing services. This is central to our research. We could go the other way. Resource implication involved in massive number of referrals year on year. If we take point that most of referrals happening at pretty low level of risk.

We have a rationed served provision model in this country. We ration just about everything on basis that it cuts cost. Interventions can happen at primary level such as register with GP, right to HV. Then escalated to secondary interventions that are rationed services.

Question – number of children referred is astronomical. A lot of those families assessed at per capital cost. Most of assessments go no further. No legal requirement having been assessed under section 17 that you will receive services. So my suggestion is that we could we pull back and say instead of referring why don’t why we make secondary tier interventions free at primary level so people not risk assessed to access them.

We could number crunch and work out how much that would save. If one of problems is risk – if we knew parenthood so risky we had 25% children born killed by parents, we would be having a different debate and would need to risk assess everyone. But that is not the case. So it is not rational or reasonable to screen for parenthood. Suggest we go the other way and save money currently spent on secondary model and open up services (APPLAUSE)

Andy Bilson – I had the privilege of working in some very poor countries such as Bulgaria helping them turn around their system. Set up very basic social work. I have seen and evaluated social work practice out there. People go out to the very poorest people to help them with housing. Working with them on health issues and get access to health. How to get access to income. It’s a different source of social worker and is immensely successful. It does not start saying you are bad to your children, its starts from, we see you are struggling and you need help.

If we could turn it around to do this sort of work we would have an entirely different system. This is not a legislative issue. This is about the ‘risk monster’. We should turn back to rights. The state has a duty to support parents to look after children. That is fundamental. Right for parents to receive help from State to look after children. That is what we need to push. Need to work with agencies that want to do something different and get some pilots going. What does change look like and how might it work. Working with Roma community and finding out out what services they needed. Found out how children were in school and talked to schools. Lots of different ways to work – we need to change it. (APPLAUSE)

Audience member – get parenting course in national curriculum. Target it. I am survivor of abuse and I didn’t have the tools to be parent to my children. I came to social services for help and they took my children and used my history against me. If you haven’t got the tools can’t do the job.

Audience member – wouldn’t that encourage teen-age pregnancies?

Sarah Phillimore – we have to start with our children and teach emotional intelligence. See this in issues of domestic violence in relationships. Not teaching children to have sex. We as nation don’t seem to talk about things that are difficult like sex emotion, anger and fear. Have to have self- esteem to love ourselves and that will make us good parents. It was Cameron who removed relationship education from the compulsory curriculum and I think he is a fool (APPLAUSE)

Annie Surviving Safeguarding – I was mother at 16 and I didn’t have a clue. I was abused as a child. My parents were abominable. I was a looked after child. No tools whatsoever. The state had a responsibility to parent me entirely. Not just food water and shelter but love care and attention. I really do believe that one of state responsibilities for looked after children is to teach them about parenting. Lets sow the seeds now, what are we scared of. Give these children life skills not quadratic bloody equations – how to take care of each other, how to love each other – it is bloody common sense. Parenting is key life skill.

Audience member – why teach it before age 16?

Annie – you don’t frame it in terms of sex. It’s about how to be compassionate how to be kind. Teach from reception. It’s got to come from somewhere. It takes a village to raise a child.

Maggie Siviter – parenting isn’t switched on at a certain age. Parenting is about relationships and we are taught about it the minute we are born from our own parents. We are learning all the time. We need to shore that up for children who have adverse experiences. Echo what Annie saying. It’s organic and should be part of our living breathing environment. And when it isn’t it needs to be supported.

Jane Auld NPI – building of brain in first 3 years of child’s life – important to teach teenagers that before they embark on being parents.

Audience member – what about our children now who are growing up with sense of injustice deprived of their parents and grandparents?

Audience member – we lost duty to prevent children coming into care with Children Act. We kept children out of care – now it is more expensive. We need to ring prevention back in, it is the cheapest money to spend. (Applause)

Brid – I am not against parenting classes but it is the poorest children in our society who end up in care. Don’t forget that. Link with deprivation is absolutely central. It is the poorest children who get removed and lose chance to grow up with families (Applause)

Lucy Reed – I am conscious that today has had a lot of information. Started a lot of interesting trains of thought and not finished. But interesting ideas and practical solutions. For those who have started please finish by putting in writing and we will put it on the TP if you can – email us at [email protected]

Thank you very much! (applause)

The Role of Social Workers in Adoption: Call for Evidence

Image

 

 

The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) has established a UK-wide enquiry to consider the role of social work in adoption. Please see their website for further details. The following is the text of their questionnaire. Please respond and contribute to this essential discussion. 

 

Prior to completing this form please read the call for evidence briefing paper and consent form.
Please confirm that you have you read and attached the consent form □

ABOUT YOU:
Age:
Gender:
Ethnicity:
Which country or region of the UK do you live in? England □ Scotland □ Wales □ N.Ireland □

Please tell us about how you know about adoption: (e.g. are you a birth parent, adopted person, adoptive parent, social worker, lawyer, academic or have other family or professional connections to adoption)

If you are a professional, for how long have you worked in this area?
If a social worker, what is your role and what kind of team do you work in?

If you are replying on behalf of a group or organisation, please provide details of your work and who contributed to the completion of this questionnaire.

QUESTIONS ON THE ROLE OF THE SOCIAL WORKER IN ADOPTION

We are really keen to hear from you so use this questionnaire in a way that suits you and feel free to tell your story in your own way.

We have listed below a series of headings, as we want to look at the whole process from work with families before children come into care through to contact and support after adoption. Not all of these may be relevant to you so there is no expectation that you will address them all.

1. Work with birth families (children and adults) when there are difficulties and before any recommendation that children should be removed from home, including support and alternatives to children coming into care.

2. Work with birth families (children and adults) during the time a case is in court proceedings (or in Scotland during the time that a case is heard by Children’s Hearings).

3. Decisions at the end of proceedings (or by a children’s hearing) about children going home, being placed with relatives or friends, foster care, adoption or another permanent care option (including where the grounds are contested in court and reasons for overriding the consent of parents in adoption cases).

4. Decisions about the placement of brothers and sisters together or apart during any periods when they are removed from home

5. The assessment and training of adopters.

6. The matching of children with an adoptive family, preparation and moving children to adopters.

7. Decisions about contact with birth parents, brothers and sisters, and other family members after adoption and what happens in practice.

8. Support to all (adopted children and adults, adopters and birth families) involved after the adoption.

Finally could you offer your views in relation to the following broader questions:
• What (if any) are the main ethical and human rights dilemmas faced by social workers currently in relation to adoption? e.g. fairness, resources, timescales, Please expand with examples.

• Do you have suggestions for improvements, including changes to the law and policy, in relation to adoption in general and the role of the social worker in particular?
*************

Thank you so much for taking the time to give your views, which will be most helpful to the enquiry.

Please return this form to [email protected]

You can also send it by post to:

Professor Brid Featherstone
School of Human and Health Sciences
University of Huddersfield
HD1 3DH
If you wish to talk with someone the following organisations may be of help to you:
Adoption UK is a charity providing support, awareness and understanding for those parenting or supporting children who cannot live with their birth parents. Adoption UK covers all four countries of the UK – www.adoptionuk.org/contact-us

The Open Nest is a charity that was developed by adoptive parents and aims to support adoptive and long term foster care families through a range of respite and support services. It is based in North Yorkshire – www.theopennest.co.uk

PAC-UK provides advice support for anyone who has been affected by adoption or other forms of permanent care. The advice line is staffed by qualified and experienced PAC-UK counselors – www.pac-uk.org

Family Rights Group advises parents and wider family networks whose children are at risk of entering or are in the care system. It covers England and Wales -www.frg.org.uk

Scottish Adoption provide support to adopted children, adopted families and birth families, tailoring services to meet individual need – www.scottishadoption.org

Birthlink provides support including an adoption contact register to all adults affected by adoptions that have taken place in Scotland– www.birthlink.org.

Adopt NI provides support to all those (birth and adoptive families) facing the challenges of adoption and adults whose lives have been impacted in any way by the care system in Northern Ireland – www.adoptni.com

After Adoption provides support and help for people affected by adoption, adopters, birth family and adopted adults in England and Wales – www.afteradoption.org,uk

Leaflet for Parents in Care Proceedings

For some time now, a group of us who attending CPConf2016 have been discussing if it might help parents to have a short leaflet which attempts to explain what’s going on, at the very outset of proceedings.  A lot of the problems which arise, or get worse, in care proceedings can be linked to poor communication between parents and professionals which is likely to make parents’ fears and worries get worse, and get in the way of a happy ending to the social worker’s intervention. 

We have started the ball rolling with this draft from one of the group. Please do read and comment. We would like to get something ready to print that is accessible and clear – graphics would be a great help. Any suggestions, welcome. 

Why Is a social worker asking about my child?

This leaflet is to explain what happens when a social worker gets involved with your family and how to get problems sorted out quickly .

You may be contacted by a social worker because someone could be worried about your child such as a teacher or a doctor. This is very likely to make you feel upset or ashamed or angry.
This is normal especially if you can’t understand why you have been reported.
The way you look after your children may seem OK to you, it might be just like your parents looked after you or just like your friends bring up their children. It might be difficult to work out what the social worker is worried about.

Children’s social workers get worried about children being upset or unsafe as well as being smacked or abandoned. Seeing their parent being hit or shouted at or their parent drinking too much and being out of control makes them upset and unsafe. If their parent is not coping they can become anxious themselves. Not having a clean home, or a parent that puts them first makes them worried. If a child is playing up at school a lot you may also get a visit from a social worker.

The social worker CANNOT just take your child away unless they are in very serious danger. They can only take your child if judge says so or the police are concerned enough to take them. You must contact a family solicitor if that happens, you do not have to pay. They may ask you to sign a voluntary arrangement (section 20) but you can ask to speak to a solicitor for free before you do so. You cannot be made to sign anything.

 

What is the social worker doing?

The social worker wants to see that your child is safe and well and will try and see what you do well as a parent and what you need to improve. They will not provide support for you but may contact other professionals for you or give you phone numbers if it will help your child. If they think your children are doing OK after they first contact you they will not bother you again unless there are further concerns. If they are worried they will start doing an assessment on your family when they will ask you a number of questions about your family background. This may be upsetting to you, but try and keep calm. From the assessment the social worker will work out what help if any your family needs or if they think your children are being harmed or at risk of harm.

What could happen next
A flowchart here CPC or care proceedings etc ?

What you need to do

Listen to the social workers concerns even if you don’t agree with them. If it helps ask them to write them down or explain more simply. See if you can find support, either from friends and family or voluntary groups. If you have a support your child is less likely to be taken way from you permanently even if there are serious concerns. Be willing to work with the social worker about their worries. Turn up for meetings and court hearings if there are any. Look after yourself, if there are worries about your or your partners addiction seek help, if you are struggling to get out of a violent relationship speak to a solicitor or a domestic violence service , its free. Most importantly put your child first, what would have you wanted your parent to do when you were their age?

FAQ or resources ?

For eg – Surviving Safeguarding, Family Rights Group etc.

So you’re thinking of suing me for defamation? Some Top Tips

Sarah Philimore writes –  It appears that of late, a sadly frequent reaction to some of my postings is a threat to sue me for defamation. It seems that some of my readers are struggling with the both the general definition of defamation and its particular application to what I write, so in the spirit of helpful collaboration and in the face of a four hour train journey to Truro Magistrates Court,  I hereby set out some Top Tips if you are considering legal action against me on the basis that I have defamed you. 

EDIT March 11th. 

On 10th March 2017 there was judgment in the case of Monroe v Hopkins relating to tweeting and defamation. As this is a topic close to my heart, I have expanded this post to consider in more detail this judgment and its implications. If you continue to think that ‘Freedom of Speech’ gives you licence to abuse, harass and vilify others you are wrong and you do not understand the law.

Understand what is meant by ‘defamation’

It is not enough to make a published statement defamatory because it says something about you that you don’t like, or you find irritating.

The Defamation Act 2013  sets out at section 1 the requirement that a statement can only be defamatory if it causes ‘serious harm’ to your reputation. If you are a body that trades for profit it is only ‘serious harm’ if the statement has caused or is likely to cause you serious financial loss.

Paragraph 23  in Monroe v Hopkins sets out the general principles in this way. 

  • Libel consists of the publication by the defendant to one or more third parties of a statement about the claimant which has a tendency to defame the claimant, and causes or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation.
  • A published statement is only defamatory if “it attributes views that would lower a person in the estimation of “right-thinking people generally” (see para 50 of judgment in Monroe v Hopkins). See further the common law principles identified in Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130, Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB) [2011] 1 WLR 1985, and Modi v Clarke [2011] EWCA Civ 937. The test is objective: what would the ‘ordinary reasonable reader’ think it meant? and would that meaning cause ‘right thinking members’ of society to react adversely to what they read?
  • Sometimes ‘what does this statement mean?’ can be influenced by facts outside the statement itself, which aren’t common knowledge. Therefore, an otherwise innocent statement may be defamatory, or an otherwise defamatory statement innocent, in the eyes of readers aware of the “innuendo facts”. The principles are stated in Fullam v Newcastle Chronicle & Journal [1977] 1 WLR 651 and McAlpine v Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB) [49]-[55].
  • The court should be wary of ‘over analysis’ – as a general rule the court must always take into account the whole of the statement that contains the particular words complained of, and of the context in which that statement appears, and of the mode of publication.

Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433

Judgment was delivered on March 10th 2017.  The case involved 2 tweets (one quickly deleted) sent by professional troll Katie Hopkins to food blogger Jack Monroe.

This judgment is also useful for its appendix explaining how Twitter works and for its comments about the need for litigants to preserve evidence – be careful about how many tweets you decide to delete, for example.

The court needed to determine

  • what Katie Hopkins meant when she sent the tweets
  • If what she meant was defamatory
  • and if so, what was the proof they caused serious harm

Ms Hopkins defence was put in the following terms

  • That Ms Monroe had herself extensively publicised the tweets complained of
  • Denying that Ms Monroe had suffered substantial distress and upset, instead taking considerable pleasure in threatening proceedings against Ms Hopkins

The judgment is well worth reading in full, comprising of a full and detailed analysis of Twitter and how things are published there. It is acknowledged that it is a fast moving medium with publications compressed into 140 characters, which may however contain links to many other publications – thus it is not always easy to determine who has read what publications or what they thought about them.

However, in the circumstances of this particular case the Judge was able to be clear. He commented at para 42 of the judgment:

an inescapable conclusion that the ordinary reasonable reader of the First Tweet would understand it to mean that Ms Monroe “condoned and approved of scrawling on war memorials, vandalising monuments commemorating those who fought for her freedom.” That is a meaning that emerges clearly enough, making full allowance for everything that seems to me relevant by way of context: the characteristics of Ms Hopkins and Ms Monroe, the nature of Twitter, and the immediately surrounding contextual material on Twitter…

The extent of publication – how many people read it? – will also need to be considered. But the Judge made it clear that precision in this matter would be impossible – but it wasn’t necessary. He was able to make a ‘sound assessment of the overall scale of publication’ and concluded that the Twitter analytics showed that over 25 hours the individual tweets generated between 21,000 and 252,000 impressions, and between 198 and 14,196 engagements.

The Judge considered further detailed arguments about ‘serious harm’ from paragraph 63 of the judgment. Clearly his analysis is particular to the facts of this case, but it gives a helpful indication of what issues the court will need to hear evidence about in future cases.

  • The extent of the publications
  • The transience of Twitter
  • The credibility of the publisher in the eyes of the publishers
  • Evidence about whether or not the allegation was believed.
  • Evidence of ‘harm done’ to reputation
  • The extent of the abuse suffered by the claimant following publication of the defamatory statement
  • The ‘existing reputation’ of the person allegedly defamed.

He was able to conclude at paragraph 74 of the judgement that

In all the circumstances and for the reasons I have given, whilst the claimant may not have proved that her reputation suffered gravely, I am satisfied that she has established that the publications complained of caused serious harm to her reputation, and met the threshold set by s 1 of the 2013 Act.

Ms Monroe was awarded £24,000 in damages plus her legal fees, estimated to be about £107,000 at the time of writing. This was a very expensive exercise for Ms Hopkins to be reminded that her ‘freedom of speech’ does not put her above the law.

The concluding remarks are well worth setting out in full

  1. This case has been about the particular tweets complained of by this claimant against this defendant. It may have little wider significance. But I cannot leave it without making two observations. The first is that the case could easily have been resolved at an early stage. There was an open offer to settle for £5,000. It was a reasonable offer. There could have been an offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996. Such an offer attracts a substantial discount: up to half if the offer is prompt and unqualified. Such an offer would have meant the compensation would have been modest. The costs would have been a fraction of those which I am sure these parties have incurred in the event. Those costs have largely been incurred in contesting the issue of whether a statement which on its face had a defamatory tendency had actually caused serious harm.
  2. The second point is that there have been difficulties over disclosure especially on the claimant’s side, of which others should take note. The deletion of the First Tweet, at Ms Monroe’s request, meant the Twitter Analytics were unavailable. And Ms Monroe’s Twitter records were extensively deleted. I am not able to attribute responsibility for that on the basis of the evidence, and I do not. What I can say is that this highlights in the Twitter context the responsibility of a litigant to retain and preserve material that may become disclosable, and the responsibility of a solicitor to take reasonable steps to ensure that the client appreciates this responsibility and performs it.

Understand the defences to defamation.

  • The requirement of ‘serious harm’: See para 23 of Monroe v Hopkins:

…it is not enough to prove that a statement had a defamatory tendency. A claimant must prove as a matter of fact that their reputation suffered, or is likely to suffer, serious harm as a result of the publication complained of.

  • Truth is a defence – if I can prove it: if I have published a defamatory statement about you, I will have a defence to any legal action if I can show that my what I am saying, or what is imputed from what I say, is ‘substantially true’ or its my honestly held opinion. I could also claim a public interest defence. See sections 2, 3 and 4 of the 2013 Act.

Remember that I do not deliberately publish anything defamatory

I am not a defamation specialist. I can appreciate I have given only a blunt precis of the law and I am sure there are lots of other nuances I haven’t covered. But I think I have got the gist. And you need to assume that I would never intentionally publish anything that I know to be defamatory. Because I am not an idiot. Therefore if it is published, it is because I believe it to be true and worth saying.

If you are unhappy with what I publish – tell me, and tell me why

Therefore, you can assume any contact with me that is simply a demand to  ‘take down’ a post because it is potentially defamatory is, without more, not compelling. Please – if anyone is unhappy with anything I write then let me know. You can contact me via twitter, or via the website – [email protected]. I am more than happy to alter or remove statements if you can show me good reasons why I should do so. I am always happy to publish guest posts or a right of reply. But a simple threat of legal action, without explaining what exactly I have published that you consider defamatory, is not going to get you anywhere.

EDIT 30/04/17 In light of recent events, I have had to amend my ‘always happy’ policy re right to replies. I will not respond to demands that I permit a right to reply. I will not permit replies or comments that are simply a vehicle to continue promulgation of abuse, offensive material or obvious untruths. If you are genuinely seeking to enlarge and expand upon discussions – I welcome you. If your motivations are clearly something other – please don’t waste my time and yours. 

If you are not happy with my response – take it to the Bar Standards Board.

If you are not happy with my response and you want to take it further, please don’t bother my Chambers with this. When I publish on the internet it is as a private individual. My activities on line are nothing to do with Chambers. I don’t post with their endorsement or their encouragement. I can’t stop you contacting them but please don’t think that by so doing you will embarrass me or persuade me to remove a post. You won’t.

You just waste your time and theirs.  If you think my conduct is sufficiently serious to merit formal complaint then you should contact the Bar Standards Board. I understand and accept that my conduct as a private individual is open to scrutiny by my regulatory body, if that conduct is so awful that I bring my profession into disrepute.

Have a word with yourself – what do you hope to achieve?

Empty threats are pointless. If you don’t genuinely intend to take legal action against me, threatening to do so doesn’t scare me or alter my behaviour – but it will make me think rather less of you, of your judgment, your integrity and your understanding.  If you are instead annoyed or angry with what I write, consider if there are other avenues to express your frustration – or at least sleep on it.

The final paragraph of the judgment of Mr Justice Warby in Econonmou is worth citing:

Mr Gosden-Hood told me, convincingly, of meetings he had with Mr Economou in which he was told that Mr Economou wished to bankrupt Mr de Freitas. It has not been alleged, and I do not find, that this was his dominant purpose in bringing this claim. I do not believe it was. Mr Economou has pursued this case with sincerity but, as I find, in anger and with elements of vengefulness. Defamatory imputations can cause injury to feelings which is out of all proportion to the harm they cause to reputation. That, so far as the earlier publications are concerned, is this case. So far as the later publications are concerned, and more generally, Mr Economou has made the error of seeing this case from his own perspective as a victim, paying too much attention to the impact on him and his feelings, and giving insufficient consideration to the other perspectives, indeed the other rights and interests, that demand and deserve consideration.

Further reading

Social Workers Speaking Out – What Should they Say?

This is a post from a social worker who wishes to remain anonymous. She discusses her frustration about the constraints on social workers speaking out about who they are and what they do and her particular concerns at the way ‘Social Work Tutor’ recently chose to frame the narrative, in terms of ‘monster parents’. 

Over the last couple of years I have been involved in various real world and online discussions about social workers speaking out, mainly why they don’t as individuals. As a general rule, if you are independent or in academia you can talk about social work, in an LA you can’t without representation or approval from the directorate (and usually under the auspices of the comms team). As far as social networking is concerned, most employment policies are restrictive enough for social workers to be anonymous if they work for an LA. I’ve felt my share of frustration with the barriers to communicating about social work as well as with the voices who claim to represent me at times. There are several aspects to this for me. On a personal level I feel silenced, and in a field active with anti oppressive practice, that feels a bit oppressive. For families who encounter social workers, not knowing about social work limits their understanding of what we do and creates a barrier of fear, barriers can be ameliorated, but it’s a shame there is one there in the first place. More widely it contributes to the air of secrecy that surrounds social work and the family justice system and I would like more transparency.

 

It won’t be a surprise to know that I was therefore interested to the Facebook page of a social worker who has a large “fanbase” (their words) and who also contributes to Community Care. I haven’t read all of the Community Care articles but this is someone with who I agreed completely when they wrote recently about feeling like social worker’s voices have been heard for the first time since Munro. There were almost 20,000 followers on the Facebook page and, from what I read, SWT appeared proud of their high profile. Reading further, some of the posts gave me pause for thought. I really didn’t like the way social work was ramped up, I didn’t like the notions expressed that social workers are heroes, or working on a frontline. I also didn’t like some of the memes, because although they might be funny in another context, they read as being jokes made at the expense of the people we work with. I also strongly objected to a very emotive post about the Ellie Butler case. Others have written very fluently about the case and I don’t intend to repeat that here, I will though tell you why I minded about it so much and thought you might wish to read the original post first. It has now been taken down, this was copied before it was, and screen shots were taken.

 

“Social Work Tutor

21 June at 19:38 ·

Ben Butler is the kind of violent monster that Social Workers fight to protect children from on a daily basis…

Ben Butler is a man who used violence, control, intimidation and fear to rule those around him. He has a history of robbery, intimidation, assaults, carrying offensive weapons and domestic violence.

He admitted that he “hoped situations might present themselves where he could engage in violence” and believed that “violence used to help him improve his mood when he was upset”.

When his daughter Ellie was just seven weeks old, she suffered a “triad” of brain and retinal injuries associated with shaken baby syndrome. Ben Butler was convicted of grevious bodily harm and child cruelty, and sentenced to prison as a result.

Using his controlling and dominant personality, he used a legal technicality to quash that conviction then proceeded to engage in a media tour to campaign for the return of Ellie to his care. Supported by the convicted sex offender Max Clifford, Ben Butler did the media rounds and portrayed himself as the doting father who simply wanted to care for his daughter.

He convinced The Sun, he convinced The Daily Mail, he convinced This Morning. Most sadly of all he managed to convince Mrs Justice Hogg who commented of her ‘joy’ at seeing a ‘happy end’ when she returned Ellie to the care of the man who would go on to murder her.

Justice Hogg dismissed his violent past.

Justice Hogg dismissed the doctor who raised concerns about aggression and bullying.

Justice Hogg dismissed the burns Ellie experienced to her head and hand at only seven weeks old.

Justice Hogg dismissed the concerns of the Local Authority who did everything they could to prevent Ellie’s murder and fought all the way to save her from her father.

Justice Hogg dismissed the heart-felt plea from Ellie’s grandfather, who warned her she would have “blood on her hands” if Ben Butler regained custody.

Eleven months later, Ellie was murdered in a fit of violent rage.

This vile creature subjected his six-year old daughter to a fit of murderous rage and then attempted a cover up with his partner and Ellie’s younger sibling; staging a scene so that the sibling would find Ellie’s limp and lifeless body.

Those last eleven months of Ellie’s life must have been hell.

She was blocked from having the support of her local Social Workers.

The independent service brought in stopped engaging seven months before she was killed.

She was living with a man she told her Grandfather she was terrified of.

She was referred to as a c**t by her own father.

Neighbours reported her as being so scared of him she wet herself.

In the weeks before her death she experienced a broken shoulder.

I could go on but even writing these words brings tears to my eyes; I can’t even begin to imagine what it was like for Ellie to be subjected to such a life.

And yet these are the monsters that Social Workers save children from on a daily basis. These are the vile creatures we fight to protect these vulnerable little souls from.

People so dangerous that they will kill their own children.

People so controlling they can convince the media and judges to bend to their will.

People so evil they will attempt to portray death and injury as accidental; using their other children to hide their heinous deeds.

We will keep fighting to save children from harm, just as the unheralded heroes of Sutton tried to do for Ellie.

We will be there for children who have nobody else.

The sad truth is that Ben Butler is not an isolated figure. There are parents like this up and down our country that Social Workers are having to deal with every day.

These are the terrors that we are trying to save the world from.

These are the parents who will tell the media that Social Workers are ‘stealing their children’ at the same time as living with the awful harm they have caused.

These are the monsters that we keep from children’s doors at night.

SWT”

 

So, I minded all that because I am horrified that anyone in my profession can imply that the people we work with on a daily basis are monsters or that Ben Butler is the face of social work. I would always say that most of the people I work with are sad rather than bad, their stories are often ‘there but for the grace of God’ and the Ben Butlers of this world exist but are thankfully few and far between. I minded that a view was being expressed that social workers work daily to save children from monsters, as a child protection social worker I think I’m working with families because they need help to look after their children safely and with the need to ensure those children live elsewhere when that isn’t possible. The rescue narrative which can describe vile creatures and protecting vulnerable little souls is not mine, neither is the battle motif. I am not saving the world from terrors or keeping monsters from anyone’s door. If there really is anyone who could be described as a monster who might be in need of restraint, that’s a job for law enforcement not me.

 

So, then I minded the legal stuff because social workers work within the law. Ben Butler didn’t use a legal technicality to quash his conviction. The court considered evidence and, however terrible anything might now seem, there was no other decision that could be made based on that evidence. It is also wrong to say that Mr Butler convinced a judge, the evidence was used by the judge to do what judges do, make a judgment. This was no act of control or anyone bending anyone else to anyone’s will. It is indeed true that this returned Ellie to the care of the man who murdered her and this is very sad indeed, nobody can think otherwise. The Judge also did not exonerate Ben Butler of all of the issues, she exonerated him of the crime the evidence supported he did not commit, if you read the SCR, the LA seem to have taken this further. I suspect this is not the only time that a judge has been warned they will have blood on their hands, I have no evidence to support this but cries from the public gallery are not unheard of.

 

So why does this matter? It matters because this person is representing social workers, not just in a publication that only social workers read, but also on a public Facebook page and they are crowdsourcing £15k to publish a book that will tell people about social work much more widely. My view is that any narrative including monsters and rescuing children demonizes the people with whom social workers work, and that narrative marginalizes social justice in the context of a time of austerity and savage cuts and with a government in power whose rhetoric about adoption is akin to social engineering. I am not the only social worker who thinks this and I would always want families to know that a large following on Facebook is not representative of any social worker I have encountered in real life or online. In the meantime, having spoken for myself, I am going to have a bit of a rethink about who represents social workers, I’ve been quite critical of BASW at times, but they are doing sterling work at the moment.