News and Events

Abuse on line: What are we going to do about it?

In April 2017  I wrote at length about my experiences of being harassed on-line. How my photograph was repeatedly published, how accusations were made about my intelligence, my appearance, my sexuality. All of this designed to terrifying me into shutting up.  I sought help from a number of agencies and received very little. For some reason, this kind of behaviour is still shrugged off as childish or inconsequential.

It isn’t.

I have more than usual resilience and an atypically combative nature. Even I have been shocked and frightened by what has been aimed at me. Particularly when my child is targeted.

I foolishly stated in April that this would be my ‘last word’ on the topic. I was fed up of so much of my time and energy being distracted by contemplating the ugly behaviour of some very disturbed people.

But they didn’t stop. They started publishing my address. They started to try and use outside agencies such as the Information Commissioners Office, as a vehicle for their harassment. They continued to make bogus and malicious complaints to my Chambers (it seems in the mistaken belief that I am employed by my Chambers and could thus be sacked).

I kept hearing more and more accounts of people -usually women – forced off social medial because of persistent and malicious abuse directed at them.

I made nearly 50 reports to Twitter about the people who were violating its terms of service; Twitter responded to agree that yes they had! then did nothing. The abuse continues.

On my Twitter feed this morning I see the following post from another woman driven off social media by intimidation and others publishing her private details.

 

 

Enough surely is enough?

If Twitter won’t act – maybe we can.  I am fed up of moaning about this, of nothing ever changing, of almost every day finding that I had to deal with insults, abuse and attempts at intimidation. This is particularly depressing when the main offender is a member of a regulated and protected profession – yet the profession takes an entirely relaxed approach to what has been persistently disgraceful and public behaviour for well over a year now.

So I have started this crowd funding project. How do you eat an elephant? One mouthful at a time. Lets start at the beginning. Lets get the groundwork  sorted for a clear legal challenge to either the failure of platforms such as Twitter to enforce their own terms of Service or against the individuals who so blatantly abuse the freedoms, privileges and responsibilities of having a voice.

Please donate if you can. But please do it anonymously – or you will run the risk of being targeted if seen to support this campaign.

https://twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/921118569315872768

 

Myths and Monsters of Child Protection

 

On Monday October 16th I attended the conference organised by the charity The Open Nest at the Foundling Museum in London, which had invited a group of speakers to investigate the ‘myths and monsters’ around child protection.

For more of the discussion on the day, follow the Twitter hashtags #NAW2017 and #mythsandmonsters.

The speakers were:

  • Lemn Sissay: Poet, writer, speaker, actor.
  • Professor Brigid Featherstone: Author of The Adoption Enquiry BASW
  • Professor Anna Gupta: Author of The Adoption Enquiry BASW
  • Footsteps Group: Birth Mums peer support group, Leeds
  • Catt Peace: Social enterprise manager, advocate, blogger, adopted person
  • Anneghem Wall: Therapist, writer, adopted person
  • Rebekah Ubuntu: Musician, multi media performance artist, care leaver.
  • Dr Sue Robson: Special Guardian, community development practitioner.
  • Fran Proctor: Life coach, writer, adopted person
  • Ali Redford: Author, Adoptive parent
  • Amanda Boorman: Founder of The Open Nest Charity, adoptive parent.
  • Georgia Cooper: Therapist, artist, charity professional.
  • Lizzie Coombes: Photographer, community arts.

A key theme of the conference was how in general the reporting about child protection issues had become divorced from the realities – in particular the danger of the opinion that hardens into ‘fact’, recorded in professional records that then becomes the story of a child for the rest of their lives.  As the organisers commented:

Without due care and attention the information given and held on file about a families history can give a ‘fake news’ version of the bigger picture around events that caused child protection interventions. This in turn may hamper an individual’s human rights to accurate life story, individual and family identity and the maintaining of important connections and relationships.

Many speakers showed the importance of poetry in delivering a message far more effectively and powerfully than can ever be achieved by a dry lecture and a powerpoint. Those who illuminated their own childhood experiences echoed the uncomfortable discussions at the recent Nagalro conference ‘What about the children’, which highlighted the invisibility of children in the child protection system, even when it is ostensibly designed for their benefit.

Professor Bridgid Featherstone acknowledged the importance of stories and how we needed to now be taking control of the narrative – sadly, merely holding out ‘facts’ for inspection has historically made little impact.  Both she and Anna Gupta are concerned by what research reveals about the impact of poverty and social inequality on decisions made in child protection, although this is rarely acknowledged as a reason children are taken into care.  Hopefully the conclusions of their recent Inquiry into Adoption will be released shortly and will make for interesting and probably sobering reading.

Again, the importance of siblings was emphasised. This is the problem with a system of child protection that focuses on the rescue of the individual child and thus sees them in isolation from their families and communities.

Siblings become the ‘collateral damage’ of the child protection process. Fran Proctor spoke about being removed from her mother but her sister was returned and was killed. She was made to feel a ‘nuisance’ for wanting to know about her sister, for wanting to know her own story.

 

Both adopted children and adoptive parents spoke of one of the most pernicious myths of the whole system – that a ‘loving family’ is all that is needed to heal the trauma of a troubled child.

Sue Robson – now the Special Guardian of her grandson – praised the work of The Open Nest in providing a therapeutic space to heal her family’s trauma and loss which had lain there for 25 years. She felt that asking for help from Social Services had been one of the worst decisions she had ever made. There was nothing she could do to prove she wasn’t a ‘bad mother’ – if she was compliant she was deemed passive, if she was assertive, she was deemed aggressive.

 

Another theme was the need for professionals to remember that they are human beings, to talk to parents and children and recognise their humanity.  I have considered the dangers of jargon and cliche in a previous post here.

Lemn Sissay reminded us that the first thing he needed when he went into care, was the last thing he got – ‘a hug’. Children need to be touched. To ban touching out of fear that adults would sexually abuse children, Lemn Sissay reminded us, is a complete nonsense. Abusers will abuse anyway – that is what they do, they break the rules. To deprive a child of human touch is a terrible thing and he reminded us just how resilient children in care have to be to endure this.

 

But not only is the child deprived of physical comfort, they are denied the truth of their own history. The importance of family is that we share memories or we argue over who is right! Lemn Sissay realised when he left care that he now knew nobody who had known him for more than a year. The name he had grown up with was a lie, so to the story that his mother hadn’t cared. He finally got to read the letters she had written when he was a child and knew that he had been loved.

 

But the speakers also recognised that some children do need to be ‘rescued’ from their birth families. And for some, being adopted will indeed be the best thing that happened, But the theme running through the conference was a plea for truth  – even painful truths can be comforting, once we are allowed to know and tell our own stories.

I was very grateful to Amanda Boorman for letting me speak for 5 minutes about my performance on October 28th. The themes of that performance are echoed so strongly by what the speakers said at this conference. There is never anything dangerous or unsatisfying about being closer to the truth.

We have to talk about adoption – Feedback from the Bristol Performance

 

 

The first performance took place on 28th September at the Arnolfini in Bristol and the second will be taking place in London on 28th October 2017 – see here for further details and how to register for tickets. 

I have written before about the process of preparing for the performance and want to take some time to consider the feedback from the Arnolfini – did we meet our objectives of ‘having an intimate conversation’ with the audience, did we succeed in showing the audience another perspective on an area they might not have thought much about before? Were we able to empower others to take this conversation into other areas of their lives and to continue this very necessary discussion?

 

 

My feedback

I wanted to ask the following questions – because I don’t know the answers and I don’t think we are collectively having open and honest discussions about these issues:

  • Can we make happy families?
  • Can we impose identity on a child?
  • Do we need to ‘rescue’ children or should we be trying to support unhappy families?
  • What is really at the heart of our child protection system and adoption and why aren’t we talking about this?

I was surprised how nervous I felt during the dress rehearsal – it was the first time using the actual space where the performance would take place.  However, I was pleasantly surprised by how that anxiety diminished once the audience were actually there and even more pleasantly surprised by how the conversation developed afterwards.

Now, instead of dreading the London performance, I am in fact looking forward to it and to have a further arena for discussions. Because, and rather obviously, we will never get answers to questions if we don’t ask them.

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/BZWwcE1B-Zu/?taken-by=sarah_phillimore

Pamela Neil on stage during dress rehearsal

Feedback from others

After the performance, Pamela Neil,the artist I collaborated with to create the performance, contacted those who had attended for feedback. We are very grateful for all the thoughtful comments and will give some thought to how best to respond and incorporate any changes into the London performance.

The following are some of questions posed and the text in bold are some of the responses.

  1. What did you enjoy? the chance to hear some familiar concepts developed at a pace that i could absorb differently to their normal context (when sarah and I are cross and ranting to one another about the situation)
  2. Are your ideas about adoption different now, following the performance? actually yes, pushed slightly further along the spectrum than i was from enthusiastic to worried
  3. Has the performance inspired you to engage with the problem discussed? yes. i am already engaged with it, as i suspect were most of the audience, but it was helpful to look at things from a new angle. I found the analogies helpful.
  4. If you could suggest one change to enhance future performances, what would it be? to let the audience know what was expected in terms of questions and participation at the end. I think only those who knew sarah felt empowered to participate. I don’t know how you could better manage that and the fact that some were quite pushy in terms of ensuring that the conversation is with new people not just those who are already part of it – other than by explicit invitation.

One attendee echoed that last concern about how people can be empowered to join in the conversations:

I was hoping for a conversation about the possibility of co-parenting and whether FDACs were a good model to follow but the after-show conversation felt exclusive and I didn’t say anything. I didn’t know who was speaking, what the issues were, nor the previous history between Sarah and the speakers, although I could feel the tension. I think it would have been helpful if speakers had been invited to introduce themselves and the organisations they were representing. I was watching people’s body language during the performance and saw lots of discomfort – I hoped social workers, if there were any there, would speak out at the end and perhaps they did but I left when I felt it was a private conversation that was re-hashing old arguments rather than discussing a way forward.

We clearly need to give some thought as to how to avoid any impression that what is happening is a ‘private conversation’ – this may be an inevitable consequence of holding the first event in Bristol where the audience were more likely to know me. Hopefully a London audience can be more diverse and conversations can be less about historic tensions and more about fresh perspectives.

However, this commentator did find the performance valuable:

There was lots of food for thought and I wanted to thank Sarah; it is good to hear other perspectives – our focus can become too narrow. I hope it will encourage the different systems to work together more closely and explore alternative ways of looking after children perhaps based on evidence from other countries.

I hope that the conversations can continue in London on October 28th.

 

The conversations we need to have about adoption – London performance.

From Bristol to London  –  28th October 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performing, Truth and Talking

On 23rd September 2017 at the Arnolfini in Bristol I will be performing for the very first time a unique ‘ oral performance installation’ that doesn’t involve dry law lectures or angry ranting on Twitter. Neither activity has done much to promote wider and better conversations about the child protection system.

To my sorrow the recent furore over The Times reporting about the Christian child and the Muslim foster carers demonstrates just how dry the well of public debate has become about such important issues.

I am really pleased to say we now have a full house for the performance on on September 23rd – and I am even more pleased to note the majority are NOT my friends or family so presumably they are drawn to the subject matter itself and think that this is worth an hour or two of their lives.

We are also performing the same piece in London on 28th October at The Depot on Upper Clapton Road – again, its free to come but you will need to register for tickets. Please scroll to the end of this post to find all the links for tickets etc.

We have to talk

As I wrote in my first blog about this the aim of the performance was to explore with artist Pamela Neil how we communicate some of the thought and ideas I have around adoption, to reach a wider group of people and starting conversations I think we should be having.

Attempts to broaden debate and understanding often falter because when the debate pushes so many emotional buttons, attempts to make a particular argument often seem to end up being a barrier to communication rather than opening a door to greater understanding and awareness – its not so much the FACTS that win hearts and minds but the FEELINGS they create.
Is it possible therefore to come at this from another angle? Not the dry legal approach which has informed my training and professional life – but trying to shine a light on the issues in another way?
One of the most important benefits of any performance or work of art must be how powerfully complex thoughts and ideas can be communicated to an audience; straight to the heart, rather than draining our interest in a dull legal lecture and PowerPoint.

When I wrote that back in June I had simply no idea how this would work or what I would have to do. I came into the exercise without any preconceptions about what was needed from me. That has proved both a blessing and problem. I simply had no idea just how hard it was to find the story I wanted to tell: to share the thoughts and ideas that were important to me with others, in a way that that provided access to the audience.

I had to free myself from assumptions that OF COURSE my listener understood what I was saying. While I am comfortable with writing, I was naive about what it meant to share thoughts and ideas in an oral form.

Its been a long and hard process – first drawing out what I wanted to say, then turning that into a form of expression that could be communicated orally in a way to engage an audience of people who may not be familiar with the topic.

I think we have now identified what it is I want to say. We now move onto the next phase, finding a way to say it that both works for me and engages the audience, giving them access to my thoughts and ideas, but on their terms.

A frankly terrifying prospect.

Pamela has born this process with remarkable patience, explaining that I can never assume that others know or understand what I am saying – I need to take her by the hand and walk her over to where I want her to stand so she can see what it is that I see. If I am advocating for a change in the way we view adoption by having open, honest and transparent conversations, I need to show her what an open and honest conversation looks like and what changes it can bring.

She has explained that we are creating a unique oral art installation – not a lecture or a speech.

I hope that come September 23rd Pamela and I will have created something that is worth hearing, something that will leave the audience with no doubt that we have to talk.

But whatever happens at either performance, good, bad or indifferent, I know that this has been a profoundly useful process for me and explained a lot about why it is so difficult to communicate, to make others see what you want them to see.

We tend not to take people by the hand either metaphorically or literally. We talk AT them, we talk OVER them we talk ABOUT them. Nobody ever changed their mind by being patronised, belittled or shouted at. It’s easy to forget that each member of an audience will have a different view about what they hear, and therefore what they take away.

We urgently need to start talking about the things that matter and I hope this is going to be a good starting point that may plant some seeds for change in the minds of the audience.

Everything planted is likely to grow.

 

WHEN              28th October 2017 6.30 – 8.30
WHERE            The Depot, Upper Clapton Street London E5 8BQ
HOW                 Register for tickets here at Eventbrite
MORE INFO?   Download brochure here

 

 

 

 

 

PICTURE OF SCAREY REHEARSAL SPACE

Researching fee-charging McKenzie Friends in private family law cases

 

This is a post from Emma Hitchings of the University of Bristol Law School. She is part of the independent research team investigating what fee-charging McKenzie Friends do and what difference their support makes to people who deal with a family dispute without a lawyer.

In the wake of legal aid cuts, individuals in the midst of a family law dispute who cannot pay for legal representation are faced with a stark choice: settling the dispute outside of court or representing themselves as a litigant in person. However, a new market has emerged to plug this post legal aid funding gap: the fee-charging McKenzie Friend. A non-lawyer assistant who charges a fee for services provided to litigants in person.

Fee-charging McKenzie Friends are a current hot topic in the legal press. Only this week a fee-charging McKenzie Friend was jailed for perverting the course of justice in a private family law case and earlier this year the Judiciary conducted a consultation into the courts’ approach to McKenzie Friends.

In response to the ongoing debate, the Bar Council  is currently funding research into the work that fee-charging McKenzie Friends do to support litigants in person in private family law cases. There is very little evidence about the background, skills and practices of fee-charging McKenzie Friends and there is no research on the factors underpinning litigants’ decisions to employ a fee-charging McKenzie Friend or on their experiences as McKenzie Friend clients.

The project comprises three strands:
– Strand one involves in-depth interviews with fee-charging McKenzie Friends
– Strand two involves in-depth interviews with clients of McKenzie Friends
– Strand three involves observation of a number of private family law court hearings involving a fee-charging McKenzie Friend and linked interviews with those involved in the case (litigant, judge, McKenzie Friend, lawyer),

 

Have you ever paid a fee for a McKenzie friend?

The team are currently in the process of recruiting clients of McKenzie Friends and would like to talk to individuals who have ever paid a fee for a McKenzie Friend to help them with a dispute about childcare arrangements or post-divorce financial arrangements. Potential participants can find out more information by visiting the following website

http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/research/projects/view/410729-mckenzie-friends

or they can take part by sending an email to [email protected].

The team expect to present the research findings in a final report due to be published in early spring 2017.

Mothers in recurrent care proceedings – how do we break the cycle?

Family Law Class 20th October Bristol Civil Justice Centre

The event will take place on 20th October at the Bristol Civil Justice Centre from 4.30 – 6pm.

Tickets are free and open to any one with an interest in this subject. Places will be limited so please contact Emma Whewell at [email protected] to book your ticket.

Please mark your email as ‘Family law event 20th October’.

Speakers will include:

  • Dr Karen Broadhurst who has been carrying out important research into why some mothers are so vulnerable to repeated care proceedings and removal of successive children
  • Sally Jenkins of Newport Council who will discuss the development of their recent programme of help and support for vulnerable mothers
  • Dr Freda Gardner will discuss the importance of early therapeutic intervention
  • Surviving Safeguarding, a parent and campaigner, will discuss some issues of concern she has about the types of intervention proposed for mothers

Presentations will finish approx 5.10pm and discussion will then open to the floor.

We are keen to get a conversation going about what works well and what could work better to help these mothers, with a particular view to developing programmes of intervention in the Bristol area.

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.

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.