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)
A parent’s view.
Quite by chance a message ( a heartfelt plea) was posted on this forum last night.
I feel sure all of you will empathise with the writer and recognise she has been left behind at the side of the road or in the ‘hole’ described at CPRConf2016. Yes ,her children have been ‘ rescued’ but the result is INHUMANITY.
QUOTE :
My 3 Childern as Be Adpoton & Social Serivces take them away from me
I frigth Children Social Serivces At Court be their Win the Case I was so upset & Crying I miss my Kid’s so much. So Children Social Serivces say to me I Can’t see My Children no more Because Their say to I got a Learning Disabitiles & said I can’t look after Myself .Be I can Because I was not Dignoie with a learning Disabitlies bye no Doctors or Never Been to Hospiceal for people with learning Disabitlies, So I just want my 3Kids Back with me I just need Some Help :UNQUOTE.
I would be grateful if some of you would comment.
The questions we have to ask ourselves are simple ones. Why do Local Authorities show so little interest in helping such mothers and why are they so keen to take children into care rather than keep the family united?
Why do the Local Authorities manage and organise their services in a way which allows for this kind of inhumanity and which stops professionals helping this mother and doing the good work they have all signed -up to do?
Bear in mind that by placing children in care, the LA stands to receive payments from the Public Purse. By supporting Debbie,it stands to gain little. Once we accept this truth, we will be getting somewhere. I feel the only way SW’s will ever be able to exercise their professional independence will be if they are placed under ‘new management’. Workers should not be directed by the LA. but by some independent body.
The care system should not be dominated by those who stand to gain by organising it.Do not deny it.Historically, children have been exploited for financial gain . It will always be so.
I hope this makes sense. All comments welcome.
“Bear in mind that by placing children in care, the LA stands to receive payments from the Public Purse.” You seem to be suggesting there is some financial reward for LAs? They do get money from central government for all sorts of services, one of which is the cost of children being in care. Most LAs run on a deficit not a profit.
“I feel the only way SW’s will ever be able to exercise their professional independence will be if they are placed under ‘new management’. Workers should not be directed by the LA. but by some independent body.” I think I need you to explain to me what difference a different body would make. At the moment the LA has the statutory responsibility in most areas, in some this is not an LA but a trust, it has the same functions so what is it about the LA that makes you think it functions in this way and another organisation would not?
I don’t agree with your suggestion that LA take children into care to get a financial benefit. It is an enormous cost to them. Yes, some private companies now benefit from providing foster carers/children’s homes, and I think this is wrong, but its a different problem.
However, I do agree with you that this message was a very sad and probably very common example of what we have identified since CPConf2015 as a massive problem with the child protection system – the child is taken and the parent is left to rot. We simply have to do better. It is shocking that this mother comes onto this site and asks for help in this way. She should never have been left so confused and unhappy. It does not say good things about us as a society that we permit this to happen.
Going back to the panel discussion, everyone seemed to be on the side of prevention not intervention. I don’t think that what Brigid Featherstone wants a change in society is going to happen, unless something very drastic occurs, but has anyone costed what Dr Devine is recommending against the current cost of child protection?
I don’t know if there is an analysis of cost in Lauren’s work, you’d have to ask her, but there is quite a lot of work on what preventative work would cost in comparison to later interventions. I will try to find the link to the research. Preventative and early intervention saves money, not to mention the emotional cost to that person and their family, and the impact they may have had upon their community and society as a whole. The issue is what people will vote for and that politicians spending is in the short term because their careers are and they want to be re-elected. It is also why they are so happy to blame SW for being rubbish rather than saying they have caused some of those issues through savage cuts over the years.
As far as I know, no. But it should be done, rather than flushing a lot of money down the ‘Troubled Families’ toilet for e.g.
That has just been so vexing.
QUOTE: They do get money from central government for all sorts of services, one of which is the cost of children being in care. Most LAs run on a deficit not a profit: UNQUOTE
Quote: I don’t agree with your suggestion that LA take children into care to get a financial benefit. It is an enormous cost to them. Yes, some private companies now benefit from providing foster carers/children’s homes, and I think this is wrong, but its a different problem: UNQUOTE
You both misunderstand the message I am trying to get over.
I said when they take children into care they receive payments from the Public Purse and I believe the payments come from the Government. I also made the points that were they to help mothers, they don’t receive extra payments from the Public purse, and they have to pay for it themselves out of the funds they already hold.
Their income increases when they take children into care regardless of what they spend. If they don’t take the children into care and keep the family united at home, they receive no extra payments from the Government and have to pay for any support out of the funds they already hold.
Yes, it is an enormous cost to them and believe me, if they received 10 times as much from Government as they do now, they would still manage to spend it. Austerity is nothing to do with it. The situation we have has existed for more years than I can remember. So-called austerity is only a recent factor. Of course they run at a deficit. They aren’t looking to make a profit, they just want to increase their income and increase their spend.
It is a fact of life, that where the Public purse is concerned, whenever and wherever tax-payers money is spent supposedly for the Public good, leeches and profiteers gather like vultures. Vice, greed particularly proliferates.
The NHS,( particularly drugs), M.O.D., NCB before the mines closed down, any nationalized industry such as the old British Rail and British Telecom and most definitely in Local Authority business deals like Public Works, civil engineering contracts, building and construction even catering concessions and any work awarded under tender is open to abuse. Child-protection is no different. When private contractors go to the Council offices, they have a contract in one hand and a magnum of champagne in the other.
You only have to read Dickens to see how the public officials benefited from institutionalizing children. You only have to read of the children illicitly exploited and transported to Australia to recognise there is always a danger that some public officials will abuse their power for profit. Don’t you think it might be a little naïve to believe these abuses do not still occur in the 21st Century? Especially with all the private fostering-agencies which exist and considering the cost of a private residential home per week.
We will never be able to stop it. In five hundred years time, the policies of Public Authorities will still be made mainly for budgetary reasons. We can expect it!
Anyone who thinks differently is naïve. I certainly expect it. Thus the people who stand to gain or lose financially from providing (or not supplying) services should have no connection whatsoever with assessments, enquiries, investigations and decision-making etc. If they have the nexus is a toxic one, unavoidably. This is why we have rules such as the separation of powers.
I would have thought this obvious. Do not deny the undeniable.
I hope those Sw’s, lawyers, academics, researchers, whistle-blowers etc. who attended the Conference, some of whose names are mentioned above will come on to the CPR forums occasionally to keep us informed of progress. I really admire them for their work.
“I said when they take children into care they receive payments from the Public Purse and I believe the payments come from the Government. I also made the points that were they to help mothers, they don’t receive extra payments from the Public purse, and they have to pay for it themselves out of the funds they already hold.
Their income increases when they take children into care regardless of what they spend. If they don’t take the children into care and keep the family united at home, they receive no extra payments from the Government and have to pay for any support out of the funds they already hold.”
There isn’t a kind cash register set up which means that money goes in the till when a child comes into care. The budget is fixed. It does not increase when a child comes into care.
“They aren’t looking to make a profit, they just want to increase their income and increase their spend.” They have a fixed income. Do you know that LAs budgets are set regardless of children in care or indeed any services provided. It is then up to cabinet to determine how those funds are allocated. In my LA for example there was a consultation, the response of residences was that they didn’t want any funds spent on adult or children’s social care. I stopped reading at that point and just hoped they never needed any help. So cabinet allocated funds based on their overall perspective because they do have to see the whole picture in the way that residents don’t, but also on the consultation.
I have the same issue as Sarah with profit, for me profit should be unconnected to services for children or adults. But I have to say if you want to imply income generation, it would be cheaper for local authorities not to have children in care and not to be in care proceedings. There isn’t some kind of payout every time a child comes in to care. It comes out of the one fixed budget. If you want to imply corruption, that could happen, but I don’t think it is the main event here. To take a tangent that way is a sideshow.
Cut and austerity are a social injustice, you should be concerned with them. They make the most deprived and vulnerable in our society more so.
Once again,you missed my point. The CS should be independent from the LA because any connection with the LA authority will inevitably compromise fairness and impartiality due to finance.
I may be missing your point but as I said in my previous comment, I don’t really understand your point, so please explain it. “I feel the only way SW’s will ever be able to exercise their professional independence will be if they are placed under ‘new management’. Workers should not be directed by the LA. but by some independent body.”
At the moment the LA is the body given the statutory responsibility for CS in most areas, in some areas this is not an LA but a trust. Either way the responsible body has the same functions. So what is it about the LA that makes you think it operates in this way but another organisation would not? CS would be part of an organisation which provides statutory services in whatever context.
Angelo is going to get his wish because I strongly suspect that in about five years child protection WILL be privatised. Whether or not that leads to any improvement in services is – I respectfully suggest – not something in which I place a great deal of confidence
I would still be interested to know what it is about LAs Angelo thinks would be improved by another body being responsible for statutory services.
I’m not sure about 5 years, just because we’ve really been expecting privatisation for a lot longer, and it hasn’t happened in a lot of areas in children’s services where it already could. Privatisation is though the direction of travel by this government and the new bill does open the way up for privatisation in a way that hasn’t existed before. I am just not altogether sure it will get through the Lords https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/20/ray-jones-social-work-threat-childrens-services-privatisation It troubles me that privatisation is seen as positive by parents. I don’t mind how social work is housed so to speak, but I don’t think we need any more venture capitalists involved. As Ray Jones says in the article that link takes you to, finding a way to profit is not hard for a business. And as someone has said elsewhere (I forget where) at least if the state rocks up to express concerns about your children, you should be looking the state in the eye, not G4S just doing what they are told to on behalf of the state.
I’d be happy with something that divorced social work from the political system and the ebb and flow of politicians’ whose rhetoric sometimes echoes social engineering. LAs are political bodies, I’ve said before the consultation of residents in my area revealed nobody wanted any money spend on adult or children’s social care. Because those councillors want to be re-elected, children’s services is running at an agreed deficit. So what that actually means is that only statutory services will be provided, and unless it is an existing service or one that can be provided free by the voluntary sector, a lot of people won’t get what they need because funding won’t be agreed.
Privatisation or not, the government don’t want to let go of social workers. They want to regulate them, instead of them having a regulatory body like any other professional. I think this is supposed to be an indicator of them taking control of a profession they are very happy is viewed as untrustworthy, social workers are presumably more untrustworthy than other professionals. Right wing governments universally loathe public servants, their rhetoric is over simplistic and often misleading, but it would be too hard for them to say actions they have taken have an impact on services for the vulnerable in society. Cuts and austerity are not irrelevancies. My very brief analysis is that the most vulnerable in society are paying for issues caused by institutions run by the 10%. The goal posts are moved around child poverty so that the most deprived can be told they are not and don’t get me started on benefit sanctions. It is a series of social injustices and privatisation is another.
Sarah, When carrying out research, I was recently involved in informal discussions with a number of support workers employed by a private company which operates several residential care homes. Their main customers are Local Authority CS departments.
Apparently, they are not forbidden to talk freely with members of the Public about their work. You may be interested to know that private care homes have little or no independence in practice. They are domineered by the LA’s who direct them, check up on them and set the standards by which they operate. All big decisions especially regarding funding are taken by the LA and they are expected to fall into line. Or lose contracts.
So ,it may be said that privatisation makes little difference currently. Private companies aren’t independent of their customers. They serve the LA and kowtow just like the CS has to.
Ofsted regulate private residential settings for children.
They are confidential settings and no worker would be able to talk about their work except to other involved professionals, that they are unable to tell you about their wrk means nothing.
When children are on orders, or subject to S20, the LA is the corporate parent. This means the only people who can place children in a regulated setting, fostering or residential would be the LA, so obviously they are the only customers.
The LA would of course set out how their needs are to be met.
The issue with private settings for me is that they profit from children in care, I happen to think this should not be a market, and there should be no profit.
P.S. It is public funds the LA and they would absolutely make funding decisions.
Will the proverbial penny ever drop?
Let me try again ! I’ll be as clear as i possibly can. Please read one point after another slowly.
1. The Child-Protection system is dominated by the Local Authorities which are CORRUPT and have illegal aims in many cases.They do not provide statutory services.
2. Because they have to follow rigid directives from LA’s , good SW’s like those named above, are unable to do their job properly and support families in line with their statutory duties. If they disobey the LA management,they will be carpeted or sacked.They cannot act independently because they are directly employed by the LA.
3. The only way to solve this problem is to separate the CS from the LA.
4. That is not an argument for privatisation. A separate group of professional SW’s should be set up enabling them to act independently from the LA.Possibly a civil service department ( paid by the Crown and completely independent of Government ).
5. Alternative to a civil service department would be if all SW’s were to be self-employed just like the ISW’s who are sometimes appointed to cases now. They would be ruled by their own professional institute of Social Work practitioners and operate in a similar way to freelance barristers. They would have to be impartial between parents and the LA.
6. When LA’s are corrupt and they do not provide statutory services due to corrupt practices and illegitimate aims, the SW’s will be able to inform the Court without fear of losing their carrers(the sack).
“Will the proverbial penny ever drop?
Let me try again ! I’ll be as clear as i possibly can. Please read one point after another slowly”
I don’t think I would be that rude to you.
Correction: without fear of losing their careers.
I wasn’t being rude to you personally ,Helen,Please forgive me. I was asking when will the penny ever drop meaning honest cp professionals as a whole.
Especially lawyers! The LA’s act with illegitimate aims and that is corrupt! As well as honest SW’s ,there are many others whose integrity is lacking.They give false evidence and they do not follow correct procedures scrupulously. They have to follow their directives from the LA management.
Helen and Sarah, when i use the term ‘ when will the penny drop?’ .i mean when will you ever accept that the Authorities are corrupt?
Ok.
Sorry, but you will be waiting a long time. I have explained – at length – why I do not accept the allegations of systemic corruption. I don’t think the system works at all well and I don’t think social workers are supported to do their best work. But that is very different from saying that ‘the Authorities are corrupt’. I don’t accept that.
QUOTE: I do not accept the allegations of systemic corruption. I don’t think the system works at all well and I don’t think social workers are supported to do their best work: UNQUOTE
My view is that the Family Court professionals lack traditional principles. I think they turn a blind eye to bare-faced corruption on the part of the LA. Instead of denying the authorities act corruptly, barristers should stand out against it. I can just about excuse the LA’s own barrister but not the Guardian’s, the parent’s or the Judge.
Principles. When public servants fail to follow legal guidelines and frameworks correctly, they are acting unlawfully. They are corrupt if they act unlawfully. When the CS and the LA accepts the unlawful malpractice, then the authorities are guilty of corruption by extension. We have systemic corruption and it would not take much more than half-an-hour for a barrister to prove it in Court. Unfortunately, they choose not to listen to parents.
The system certainly does not work well and one reason is that the SW’s aren’t supported to do their best work. They ignore working together frameworks because the LA fails to provide statutory support services which it has a duty to provide. We simply cannot ignore these clear examples of bad management and corruption.
The Working Together frameworks(2014) state that LA’s are to inform parents of local advocacy services and of their right to have one attend meetings and conferences to support them. It has a clear duty to do this and, in the spirit of the Act, it can actually provide funding for the FRG to advocate for parents.. It chooses to do nothing. Usually there are no local advocacy services to refer parents to. The SW’s do not inform parents of their rights but not only that, if a parent takes an advocate or a friend along to a meeting, they will refuse to admit them or if they admit them, they won’t allow them to talk. The system is corrupted in that respect.
The frameworks also say that SW’s are supposed to examine all less invasive alternatives to removal. As Cathy Ashley will tell you, Family Group Conferences are very helpful .Extended family should be consulted fully and often they are able to help and support parents to keep their children at home. Apparently, SW’s rarely find it possible to arrange for family group conferences. So they corrupt the statutory requirements and procedures again in that respect.
Any more examples of how the LA corrupts the system? Oh, yes!
Uncorroborated evidence: the LA presents evidence taken from computer databases which is uncorroborated. Much of it is comprised of hearsay and ‘intelligence’. It is disguised as fact and no-one gets to see the data-base until long after a case is over.
False representations under oath : The LA present reckless false statements under oath. It corrupts the evidence and the system but the Court turns a blind eye. It chooses to believe that false evidence can be allowed because it is unlikely all the LA evidence is false. On principle, most normal courts would say the opposite.
The willingness of the Judge and lawyers to tolerate malpractice, breaches of procedure and false representations defies belief. It is acknowledged there are problems caused by courts not following practice directions and guidance. I can think of a number of CoA judgments where Lords Justice expresses exasperation at ‘yet another’ case coming before them where guidance isn’t followed .
It isn’t the court causing this problem. It is simply that the court can’t really do anything about it UNLESS the barristers raise the issues in open court. That isn’t a question of ‘fault’ – its a recognition of reality! What happens? Many barristers ( not all, i hopeSarah ) turn a blind eye.
Look at Mumby J’s list here. All of these procedures are rarely followed .If a parent says the SW won’t talk to them, all a barrister has to do is ask for minutes of meetings and ask the SW’s to provide a list of parental disagreements circulated amongst professionals.
• Informing the parents promptly of its plans
• Giving factual reasons
• an opportunity for parents to answer allegation
• Providing an opportunity to make representations
• Allowing the parents the opportunity to attend and address any crucial meetings.
I think you misunderstand what corruption is. Corruption is a form of dishonest or unethical conduct by a person entrusted with a position of authority, often to acquire personal benefit. That there needs to be change in the CP system would be accepted by most who work within it, there are barriers to doing good work. There is no financial or personal gain to any of that.
Some of the things you think the system doesn’t do, it does, and it does them regularly. I can’t go through all of those points again because I have before.
The LA does provide statutory services, that is all they provide, this due to cuts imposed by central government. It means that some services people would benefit from do not exist unless they can be self funded. You may think people should be entitled to the services they need, whatever they look like. I’d like that to, but it isn’t possible in the NHS or social care, yet you dismiss the impact of cuts and austerity.
There is a dearth of advocacy service and it would be better if there were more, however parents are able to take advocates and friends to meetings, they are admitted, and I can’t think of any circumstance where they can’t speak.
SW spend a lot of time working with families to avoid children being removed.
Family Group Conferencing is one method of working with a support network, others are used which are very similar, they tend to be called family meetings just because FGC is the name of a model. FGCs are not part of the statutory framework.
Computer databases hold information shared with families as well as information they have given CS, alongside safeguarding information shared by statutory agencies, this is not heresay. Other sources of information can of course be malicious but those are investigated along with any other information received and identified. Sometimes information can only be shared with the person it is about under data protection guidance, that person can though share it with others and most do.
Parents are informed of LA plans in Core Groups, Case Conferences, Pre Proceedings meetings – I would add visits to this but those are the formal settings. They are given a very clear list of what needs to change and what help/support is being provided that the LA expect them to engage in, in order to ensure their children are safe. Any allegations can also be discussed in those settings and parents are able, and do, respond.
I have no idea why you think parents don’t attend meetings, they sometimes choose not to, but I don’t know any of those meetings except a core group that would proceed without a parent and then I would make sure I met with them as soon as possible had they chosen not to attend.
QUOTE :It is a fact of life, that where the Public purse is concerned, whenever and wherever tax-payers money is spent supposedly for the Public good, leeches and profiteers gather like vultures. Vice, greed particularly proliferates : UNQUOTE
Do not deny the undeniable . Beware of the dreaded Hillsborough disease.
I think parents aren’t always invited to meetings and that many other procedures aren’t followed either for the simple reason that J Mumby and other High Court Judges are constantrly complaining about it.Are they making it up?
Who are you quoting?
Munby doesn’t say this always happens, judges should point out when something that should happen hasn’t, it isn’t ALWAYS and it isn’t constantly.
Conspiracies and corruption are rare, those who know more than you about the CP system say that the system is fault but there is no widespread corruption or conspiracy. it isn’t denying the undeniable.
I don’t think there is a general conspiracy to be corrupt. The system has simply become corrupt over the years due to the prevailing conditions under which it works. Even honest SW’s will admit that sometimes they have to act wrongly due to prevailing conditions and strict directives it has to follow .Yes ,and they admit that they benefit from it too . They avoid the sack and remain on the payroll!
Can you honestly say that no-one has ever been caught fiddling their expenses,by the way? Have you ever seen cash being bandied about in envelopes without signed chitties?
Is there always time to do everything correctly and follow every procedure?
Is it not tempting (for some SW’s ) just to save time and heartache? Isn’t it easier for them just to bend a few rules ,take children away when not strictly necessarily but by doing so ensure they cover themselves?
No individual is to blame for spanish practices.It is an industrial illness. It is the system which is corrupt when individuals are forced to act incorrectly ( unlawfully).
I rest my case.
You are still misunderstanding corruption, you can say the system doesn’t function but I don’t think there is either a widespread conspiracy or corruption.
Your cases rests on nothing:
Let me know about the honest social workers who act wrongly and your evidence for that?
People who fiddle expenses are sacked.
I have NEVER seen cash ‘bandied about’ without a paper trail.
SW would often like to spend more time on their job (written records and direct work with families) but high case loads mean they can’t, instead they do the basics – the basics are statutory responsibilities – the things that can’t not be done.
I can honesty say that I have never met a SW who wants to remove a child, courts make that decision based on evidence, and it is horrible for everyone. In saying it might be tempting, I have no idea what you are implying. It would need to be absolutely necessary.
I don’t know what Spanish practice is, sounds like a racial slur to me?
I just find it a bit of a problem that the issues you identify are not the issues with the CP system and that means the real issues aren’t being discussed.
I will have one more go ( on this thread) at defining systemic corruption from a parent’s point of view.
The Children’s Act statute ,the High Court and the ECHR ,in order to prevent the institutional abuse of families and the Law ,have put in place procedural guidelines and safeguards. These are to stop Public Authorities from abusing citizens.
When these safeguards are not followed scrupulously by public servants,cases are corrupted . When public servants skip the requirement for fair and impartial investigations and don’t check false evidence with parents, they corrupt the case and the system is corrupt.
It is no excuse when procedures are not followed for the reason of funding or lack of it. It is no excuse when LA’s refuse to fund correct and humane social work for electoral reasons following ‘consultations’ with residents.
All this is evidence of systemic corruption. Justice and human rights should not depend on funding. Financial prudence should play no part in judicial decisions otherwise the system is corrupt.Barristers and solicitors should get their priorities right.
Were that to be true, it would still not be corruption, you need a different word.
Local Authorities are corrupt if they base Children’s Act assessments and decisions regarding funding of support services for political reasons following polls amongst residents ( as described by Helen).
The human rights and needs of children should be paramount.
That is almost the polar opposite of corruption, it is democracy.
& statutory services are always provided.
In fact your problem is not the LA at all in that instance, it is that the general public think the vulnerable = feckless poor & that their children would be better off somewhere else, as also reflected in political rhetoric about adoption.