Do social workers and the courts get it wrong sometimes? TW child abuse.

[Monthlymusing]

Obviously we know they get it wrong in that they tragically miss cases of abuse. This is about the other way round. Inspired by Marten and Gordon trial (please don’t discuss this specific case as it’s on going) I have fallen down an internet rabbit hole about the parents who truly believe that social services are out to snatch children from loving homes. There are thousands of them. Networks of people who help and advise people how to escape SS. There are open FB groups where parents share horror stories. I came across a ‘documentary’ on YouTube that was quite well presented, although I realise as a sane person, a good bit of anti ss propaganda. They interviewed many ‘middle class’ sorts of parents who all claimed their dc had been taken on imagined or fabricated allegations. One couples child had then tragically died in foster care, which made them feel vindicated as they had raised concerns the child wasn’t being properly cared for. The allegations against them were very extreme, almost unbelievable and involved family SA. This was quite some time ago but they have been very public about their case. They are actually in my LA, which was graded as inadequate for SS.

My thoughts are that if SS have concerns they are most likely correct and there are many parents getting away with abuse and hardly any wrongly accused to the point of losing their children. But like the police, presumably in a very small number of cases, it stands to reason that they sometimes do get it catastrophically wrong. Or are there enough ‘layers’ and enough professionals on each case that this is basically impossible?

They can only act on the evidence presented to them so yes mistakes can amd do happen

@Jellycatspyjamas

Here's the research:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3784288/

I think that many adoptees would agree that it's the lesser of two evils, but there are a large number of adoptees that don't agree. It of course depends on the age/generation/reasons for adoption. It's hard to say therefore it is the lesser of two evils as many people could have functioning relationships with their biological family whilst remaining in care. If any thing the care system is the biggest issue as it isn't adequately designed for long term support for children to thrive.

I also know that kinship and guardianship aren't given the same thought as adoption, nor the same resources or support so are less viable options.

Yes adoption does indeed remain a last resort, but we still have for more adopters than children in need of adoptive homes which shows me that there is a great lack of understanding of who and what adoption is for.

As I've said several times now - I've not seen someone removed for not taking them to a museum or party but I have seen it evidenced by social workers as examples of neglect in cases for removal (alongside other things) and that in itself is terrible. It shouldn't be part of the assessment for removal nor should that opinion for any evidence for removal - which again, I have seen social workers do (and need to be corrected on).

I work training student social workers and social workers on adoption and contact/family time. That's my background. I specialise in that.

@MyMotherThouArt

I work with social work students and social workers in adoption. It's not a lack of training.

I'm sharing what I have seen happen. Students fresh out of masters thinking that they can use personal bias as supporting evidence for removal, which is what I mentioned previously.

Of course it is not the reason for removal. It's however a change in training and the people coming in to social work. It's why there is such a large dropout rate. People hugely unprepared for the work.

One of the most challenging weekly Panels I sit on in the LA is Legal Gateway. This is a statutory panel which all LAs have, where legal attend and SWs and their managers bring cases which they need to consult with legal on to see if they meet threshold for escalation (usually PLO - final stages before care proceedings).

I can categorically say after hearing the stories of hundreds of children at Gateway, no SW is seeking removal on the grounds of no birthday party or visits to museums, FFS.

On the other hand, I have seen photos of living conditions which do not meet threshold but which I personally would regard as totally inadequate for a child. Maybe I’m right, maybe I’m not, but the point is it isn’t just one person making these huge decisions.

No one will question?! You clearly have no idea how any of it works. You can’t even write your own case notes without explicit evidence for all your observations so that managers and anyone who takes over from you can see the basis for all your actions.

An average SW will have oversight from an AP, a team leader and then some management (varied in different areas and teams) before you even start on legal/IRO/guardian ad litem etc. With that plus two or three different types of supervision on a regular basis, there are a lot of questions.

So you aren’t a sw student or a qualified sw?

What actually is your role?

You just need to look at the Step Up scheme to get an idea of social workers qualifying now versus those from 15 years ago.

Getting onto Step Up requires a 2:1, preferably from a Russel Group university. I've seen several cohorts of them, and many drop out before even qualifying as they're ill equipped due to their life experiences to handle the trauma of social work. Those that do stay often struggle to work with the families being referred through due to their biases.

Of course there are working class social workers, but it has moved from a profession that was very working class, less bureaucratic, no degree required to now being something that has high levels of training, management, degree compulsory.

Also drug use, severe mental health issues etc exists across all classes but those classes with access to private rehab or private counselling are often able to keep their children as seen as engaging, as they can get help in a timely manner versus someone who is on a 3 year waiting list for a funded rehab placement.

What ‘training’ do you provide?

@MyMotherThouArt

Three key areas

1. Maintaining contact post adoption
2. Adult Adoptee Support
3. Adopter preparation

With students I primarily work around the history of adoption, the lifelong impacts of adoption and how social workers can improve practice around life story work.

I’d like to know from social workers- is it true that some mothers get their kids removed because of domestic abuse from a partner?

and is that the sole reason for removal?

I met a woman who was about to go to court to have her kids removed at an activity for parents and kids. She seemed like a living mum, so was surprised she was about to lose her kids. Obviously, I didn’t know the full story, but I’d imagined people in that situation would look obviously vulnerable, example

@MyMotherThouArt

Qualified non practicing- independent consultant on adoption/adoption training.

All entirely irrelevant to my statement which is essentially yes people get it wrong and the lack of training and support now, coupled with lack of staff is leading to this increasing.

Less time to do direct work or prevent problems. Risk of future harm cited as evidence for removal with no actual support offered to keep child in situ.

So yes SW can and do get it wrong. No - not always.

Oh I get it now.

I also know that kinship and guardianship aren't given the same thought as adoption, nor the same resources or support so are less viable options.

Adoption isn’t greatly supported, there isn’t financial support unless you qualify for increasingly rare adoption allowance, kinship and guardians do receive financial support. Post adoption order there’s no support for adoptees unless there is a need for ASN or disability, kinship carers have the continued support of social work and associated support for looked after children, while guardianship can be more of a grey area.

I have 25 years experience as a CP social worker, I specialise in trauma and public protection and am also an adoptive parent. I’d be interested in when you last practiced given your perception of social work as a profession.

The report you linked to explores suicidality in adolescents, not adults and notes influences including early trauma, genetic disposition to mental illness and personality disorders, parental substance misuse and the attachment difficulties associated with children being removed from/rejected by birth parents (given the high proportion of adoption in the US for relinquished children). The report itself says that adoption as a causal factor in suicidality is undetermined.

It’s not unreasonable, knowing what we do about the impact of early trauma, to expect a higher level of distress in adopted children, that also tracks to children who are care experienced. Adolescence is a particularly vulnerable time for children who have been adopted given their developmental stage and the processes at play there. It doesn’t mean adoption per se increases risk of suicide. It’s a bit worrying that, as a specialist, you’d be so seemingly unaware of the multi-faceted nature of risk and causality.

A definite factor if she can’t/won’t engage in any steps to leave/remove him, because then the children are in danger. Same with women who choose to stay with paedophiles.

I’d like to know from social workers- is it true that some mothers get their kids removed because of domestic abuse from a partner?

It can be, if mum doesn’t engage with services, doesn’t end the relationship, can’t protect her children and the risk continues to escalate. Most won’t have their children removed and there’s a much better understanding of the dynamics of abuse and coercive control with more efforts to safeguard in the home. Ultimately though if the risk can’t be reduced any other way then removal is the option of last resort.

Those that do stay often struggle to work with the families being referred through due to their biases.

Around 40% of social workers leave the profession within 6 years, due to very high levels of risk, lack of resources, lack of support, high work loads, lack of further training, unpredictable work patterns. Social workers often cite the lack of opportunity for direct practice with families as a reason for leaving the profession, often to more practice based work in the third sector.

Where is your evidence that social workers can’t engage due to their own biases as opposed to the dozen other structural reasons that get in the way?

@Jellycatspyjamas i don’t like to think what a hard job it is, but I am not sure the above is always true. I would hope it mostly is.

There is support for adoptees post adoption. You've completely ignored the Adoption Support Fund. Available up to 21 or 25 based on the child's needs.

Kinship Carers do not all receive financial support. Particularly as a large proportion of children placed under kinship are done on an informal arrangement or via a private fostering agreement. So it entirely depends on the basis of the Kinship arrangement. Seen several people miss out on financial support by taking a child in agreement with a parent to avoid them going in to care and this meaning that they don't receive the foster carers allowance they'd get had the local authority set it up.

Yes risk and causality are multi-faceted. I never said adoption is why people commit suicide. I said it can be a big factor. There is a huge body of evidence indicating the trauma of adoption. There's a massive network online of adoptees talking about the trauma they feel around adoption and how it impacted their mental health or life for example. Yes it's not independent from early life experiences and I don't think that it would ever be possible to say abuse caused this and adoption caused this.

I don't know why you're creating a false narrative where I said adoption is the only problem or the only trauma. It's an additional trauma.

It's one thing to have a traumatic childhood, another to be removed from birth family, and then an additional trauma on top of being adopted and everything that goes with that.

That isn't to say for some people it's not good or that it's not necessary.

Absolutely.. in fact a lot of the young people who I work with have experienced very difficult relationships with their adoptive families and have ended up going NC quite often and not because they've been back in touch with bio family but because of the complexity of adoption and issues within that family unit. Not all adoptions are successful or long term and I've seen them play out in ways that feel unnecessarily harmful to the bio parent or even harmful to the child. Children in kinship care/guardianship style setups have much greater social/ community involvement, stronger senses of identity and overall better outcomes than children who are in other types of care. Families who adopt also report finding it much harder to access appropriate support when their child hits puberty/ more challenging teenage years in comparison to Fostering counterparts.

In my own family I have family members who are part of our family through long term fostering/guardianship style placement. Space has ALWAYS been made for a relationship with their bio parents (even when the family members were adults) who unfortunately never became able to participate in a relationship for various reasons. It's worked very well, given lots of security to them from childhood and also left a clear sense of their identity and family make up , and space for relationships to change and grow organically with no pressure put on the child/ adult to hide their wish to know their bio family from their foster family. Many adoptees feel a sense of obligation and misplaced gratitude towards adopters that can be harmful and I know many adoptees who have ended up forming connections with bio parents in inappropriate ways because they felt they were letting their adoptive parent down by wanting to make those connections.

In my experience the number one causes of young people I work with going into care is DV and second to that it's been parental mental ill health. In fact the number one feedback that young people gave as to misconceptions about being in care that they would change if they could, was other people presuming that their family were bad to them or were bad people. Every single young person said the same thing.

I agree many adoptions take place prior to the age a child could give consent, but personally I think that should be changed. I feel one of the big problems we have at the moment is that many people look to adopt to 'fill their family' following challenges conceiving which can be difficult for the adoptive child to accept never mind the adoptive parent and due to the COL and especially the housing crisis, not enough people live in houses with extra rooms where they can facilitate long term fostering the way we would have had 10-20 years ago. There's so much that could be done if the system was properly funded and resourced it could be so much better.

I feel you're taking my comments very personally and I don't want to engage any further.

To clarify for you however, I'm not criticising you or other social workers. I am acknowledging that the system is flawed. I am saying that mistakes do happen. There are social workers who aren't very good at the job. There are children removed who shouldn't be.

You're correct I don't have research to prove it's people struggling with their own biases versus structural issues. I couldn't even say it wasn't a culmination of both. However if you stopped trying to argue everything I said, you'd realise I'm agreeing with you for the most part.

It's a hugely understaffed, underfunded, challenging area to work. To think SW get it right all the time is laughable. The threshold for removal is high, but that doesn't mean children aren't removed for the wrong reasons in some cases.

As I've also said people not being able to do direct work has led to an inability to work to prevent problems for some families meaning removal was the only option. Similar to how you've said people are leaving due to a lack of being able to do direct work with people.

I feel we are two sides of the same coin here. I respect what you do and how difficult the work is. I also recognise that what it is today is different to 5/10/15/25 years ago. Level of experience and training has changed. Turnover has increased. Less practice wisdom. More tick boxes of what neglect looks like (think GCP2 which is a tool used to evidence neglect and some of the categories are indeed celebrations and outings).

I'm not saying these things are in isolation, but that a combination has led to failures.

I’m not taking anything personally, my experience in practice differs from yours. You’ve made some pretty bold assertions about middle class social workers removing children from lower class families through unchecked bias, which belies the checks and balances in place.

If you knew anything of my posting history on all things social work you’d know I’m quick to challenge poor practice, I’m not someone who thinks social workers always gets it right. I do however know first hand the complexities of practice in public protection and the difficulties of finding any placement for a child, much less one that meets the child’s particular needs.

In practice kinship arrangements are always the first consideration when removing a child. You can’t compare an informal fostering arrangement within families to foster care or adoption, social work can’t resource something they aren’t involved in. Where there’s a formal kinship arrangement there is financial and practical support to secure the placement.

I’m in Scotland so no adoption support fund, post adoption support is provided through a network of local authority and contracted out services. If you stopped off at the adoption boards on here, much less on Adoption Uk you’d see the difficulties in accessing that funding and finding appropriate, accessible services on which to spend it. It’s laughable to suggest that adoption is better resourced than long term kinship or foster care.

I’m not arguing with you, I’m disagreeing with you.

Eh?
So the biased 'practice' you've apparently seen where examples used in court of neglect include not having birthday parties were not in fact from social workers involved in care proceedings but from students fresh out of training? Who are nowhere near care proceedings until at a minimum they have completed their ASYE year which comes with heavy supervision and support?

how are you an expert on what's happening in practice if you are a student educator? By definition your interaction with social workers is at the start of their careers where they aren't involved in complex work like care proceedings.

also this I also know that kinship and guardianship aren't given the same thought as adoption, nor the same resources or support so are less viable options. is also false.

Only if she's been given every opportunity to leave safely and keep the kids safe and has gone back to him/keeps going back to him. You'd find it hard to believe how many times some women keep going back despite every single resource being made available and despite the real risk of losing their children. It's rare but it does happen.

The adoption support fund is rarely enough to even cover the work that is identified for the adoptee and doesn't go to the family. You're being disingenuous by talking about informal family arrangements. Such arrangements do exist but not for long term care arrangements. Where children's services are involved and supporting long or medium term care plans for children with family members they are legally obligated to assess, regulate and financially support those placements.

I’ve seen so many videos on TikTok of women talking about their children having been removed for.no reason and people commenting about their own similar experiences. Many of them, if you go down a. Rabbit hole on their videos / comments are situations where DV is present but they are minimising or defending. It’s really tricky because it’s dangerous to leave but at the same time I can see how SS don’t have a lot of choice, as the alternative is leaving children in a situation of known violence. I would like to think that at least in those situations there would be an understanding of the danger and additional support around the DV issue.