residential children's home to open in our street

[steppemum]

Got home last night and there is a letter through our door from a neighbour.
Apparently there is a planning application in to change the use of a house to a residential childrens' home. The letter was asking for people to put in ojections to the planning application.

I walked past the house today.
We are a quiet road, dead end, the house in question is large with big garden and another house built at the end of the garden (they built it and sold it off) It is close to neighbours but detached. Has its own large drive for parking. The application is for both the main house and the house in the garden to together become a childrens home.

I can't see what the problem is! I am tempted to put in a comment to the planners to say this is a nice quiet, safe road for a kids home.
I am glad that there will be more facilities as our council has a great deal of trouble finding enough foster homes.
We are detached but very close to neighbours, and we never hear a thing.

Am I being naive?
Is there any reason why this house might cause problems?
Honestly I just think this is NIMBY ism. But is that me being naive?

I’d be interested in what you think can happen, within the law, where there is a high level of concern but no concrete evidence

There is a lot which could have been done and could still be done. There are different aspects to the problem - investigations into the gangs and their activities, why their actions are so prolific, the background to the situations, the situation in the UK re trafficking, dark web, serious crime - all of this could be improved on vastly. The victims themselves - there has to have been some considerable neglect to allow the gangs get a hold in the first place. We are talking about decades and decades allowing the current awful situations to happen.

Working out the root causes and strategy about all the various aspects contributing to the situations would enable changes to be made.

Asking "but what can we do within the law" unfortunately leads to kneejerk and not useful responses, for example, the latest brilliant idea (which is actually happening, sadly) is to change the law allowing these appallingly run homes to restrain teenagers. Can you imagine the potential for abuse and further trauma?

If the care is properly managed in the first place, or real supports given to the families concerned to keep children out of care, and the way social care and the social net and education and training is fundamentally changed then the situations would not arise.

The children’s home I worked in last took in a teenager who came to us from a caravan where he was cared for by different agency staff every week.

Residents with very obvious mental health impairments scream, moan, whistle and shout comments at passersby from the windows.

This doesn't sound any more threatening or invasive than when I walk to the shops and get barked and growled at by the dogs that four of the households en route keep in their gardens. It's just noise as you walk past, it's not like they are running out to shank you. "Heaven help the neighbours" seems an excessive reaction.

House price differences have a lot more to do with school catchment areas than with antisocial behaviour. Anyone can behave antisocially and some of the worst offenders are rich.

I think this already exists: when I was a kid, the local fish wrapper had a story in it once that a bunch of prostituted women had been given a court order excluding them between certain hours of each day from going into the street they normally solicited in.

It would be about standard for British patriarchy that there's some bullshit "reason" why paedo men can't be kept out of a street but exploited women can.

the latest brilliant idea (which is actually happening, sadly) is to change the law allowing these appallingly run homes to restrain teenagers. Can you imagine the potential for abuse and further trauma?

Anyone would think that we didn't have excellent reasons from banning restraint in the first place.

themselves - there has to have been some considerable neglect to allow the gangs get a hold in the first place. We are talking about decades and decades allowing the current awful situations to happen.

I attended a conference where one of the senior investigators in CSE was talking about how these gangs got hold of the young people they exploited. In many cases young people from “good” families who had been approached going into under 18 clubs - they’re parents dropped them off round the corner from the venue and the girls (because she was talking predominantly about girls) were approached between the car and the club and by the time the night was over, they had been drawn in by a guy saying he was their boyfriend and it went downhill from there. These people are incredibly good, and quick, at what they do. None of the girls had difficulties at home, they all had engaged parents who were absolutely at a loss with what to do as they watched their daughters change in front of their eyes and the girls were abused for years.

Its disingenuous to blame parents (and in this case carers) for the abuse of men, these men will find victims, and they are both highly skilled and very quick at drawing in young people and pulling them away from the protective adults in their lives.

You only need to look at threads on here - how many adult women don’t see really clear red flags in the men they’re dating. Who shift their boundaries to accommodate a man, who change every aspect of their being, who hide the abuse they live with every day. If grown women can’t spot it, can’t get out, can’t ask for help what chance do teenage girls with little experience of safe relationships have?

I’m in Scotland where the legislative and policy landscape are different to England. The laws around grooming and trafficking changed a few years back to make prosecution easier. There are resources thrown at getting underneath these gangs, the police can understand what’s driving the gangs, how they operate and where but without corroborating evidence they can’t get them into court, and the kids are terrified.

The use of restraint here is under review with a view to reducing or possibly removing restraint as an option, so again a different policy landscape. This does mean carers have very little power to prevent a young person leaving the home if they want to, even if they know the young person is in danger. Which is the same really for most parents.

I agree that noise during the day is just an irritation rather than a problem, but not sure you'd feel so sanguine about the noise at night if you lived close by.

We are allowed to restrain teenagers.

Im glad we could restrain the last 16 year old boy who was trying to put me in a chokehold and swinging a kettle around with boiling water in it.

True, if a grown well educated/streetwise woman can be duped into an abusive relationship, what more pf vulnerable young kids.

I had a friend from a good home. Went out clubbing one night, random guy bought us drinks and whispered to my friend that because she drank it, she was now his gf.

She froze, didn't tell me and they exchanged numbers etc. He'd pick her up in his car and when I finally found out, she said he'd threatened her not to tell anyone.

Convinced her to stop seeing him but this is what some abused girls go through. They think it's a bf who cares and because of being at that difficult age, find it hard to tell their parents.

These men know how to manipulate their victims.

It was interesting to read about the differences between Scotland and England and Wales and I imagine there are lessons to be learned there. But I think you have misunderstood some of the issues, notwithstanding.

You quoted what I wrote about neglect and said it was "disingenuous" to blame parents, but - NB - I was commenting on children in care, not parents, and I was posting about what could be done better by the state, effectively - in relation to crime, education, care - a whole host of things. The vast majority of children in care suffer considerable neglect while in care and are seen as easy prey. I wasn't talking about parenting at that particular point.

But since you raise parenting, in relation to the points you made about the parents, the conference you attended was quoting from summing up remarks made by the judge in the Oxford grooming case - I have read the summing up and recognise the comments - but - NB - the judge's comments here was in the context of saying was that some of the children had not had any problems prior to their involvement with the gangs, and the judge emphasised the fact that they were from normal families and that the gangs had absolutely destroyed their futures, in dispicable ways. So, a different context from that which you raise. The judge didn't draw the conclusions which you have drawn/the conference drew.

Basically you have a spectrum - families where there is emotional neglect and no connection with the children (on the left), families where the parents are busy and their approach to parenting is "hands off" (this is very popular on MN or has been in the past) or where there are fractured relationships due to intergenerations trauma but the family otherwise functions as a normal decent family (in the middle) and families who talk a lot every day, give blow by blows of what they have done and their thoughts and feelings, having strong healthy emotional connections with eachother, know eachother well, are well informed about relationships generally including the dangers of predators (as part of their awareness of what is and is not healthy) and who warn their children in child appropriate and effective ways (the right).

Children and adults from the left and centre backgrounds are more likely to experience unhealthy relationships in future and more likely to be groomed. Those from the right hand side (NB this is not about political right and left!) are not likely to be groomed, and so I think this nuance was lost in what the conference was saying. In relation to the right hand side of the spectrum it is still possible for there to be attempts at grooming or bad influences some of which might initially cause problems, but the situation is far more likely to be recognised and dealt with (ie stopped by the family) if the family is close and engaged and well informed as per the right side of the spectrum.

Just like young children who are taught the pants rule in appropriate ways are less likely to be sexually abused than young children without that guidance.

We can teach children about healthy relationships to bring more children to the that right hand side of the spectrum and we could teach parents how to parent in that way.

The above is explaining things in a very basic way - trying to illustrate things so that it is clear. If properly organised and thought through, many changes could be effected to positive ends.

My perception of abusive relationships written about on MN is different from yours - I see a lot of experienced and wellinformed posters helping other posters to get out of situations which, without that advice, they might have stuck in. You are right that intelligent adults can be fooled by sociopaths into abuse relationships where they experience harm and gaslighting etc - but ime it is those who have not had healthy relationships modelled - ie those from the middle or left in my example above. And reading about how it works on MN will help people get out of their situations and focus more on healthy relationships. And again, the right level of education about emotional intelligence at school age is going to make a big difference here.

As an aside, what you said about the conference illustrates (imo) one of the problems we have in relation to social care - inadequate training, lack of knowledge of relevant research or relevant factors, too frequently a lack of joined up thinking.

At the end of your post you talk about parents not being able to restrain a 13 year old. I think you are missing the point here. In families on the right hand side of the spectrum there is no way a 13 year old is going to be let out if the parents suspect something is going on, whether drugs or trafficking or other. They won't need to restrain the child because the relationship is strong enough for them to talk to the child and tell the child that under no circumstances will they be going out, and then to sit down and help the child talk.

I am in no way judging parents from the middle or the left as I strongly believe that most parents do the best they can with the resources they have available to them - and that public services could be doing a lot more to support.

I don't think it was appropriate for you to refer to my earlier post one of your earlier posts as a "long rant" by the way.

Just out of interest, what guidelines are you given about restraint, and if it is allowed, why are there new laws being brought out to adapt what is being done now?

There are various models and they all focus on setting kids up to succeed and deescalation first and foremost. The focus is always on avoiding it as much as possible. When it happens there is then a debriefing - ideally with the child or young person to see what can be learned. if it’s done well. It’s only used if there is risk to person or property.

The trouble is that the kids’ experience has nearly always set them up to struggle to manage their emotions and have very little trust in adults so they can get into patterns of testing and pushing. The staff are only human, so often have buttons that can be pressed and the best of us will struggle to avoid the contagion of highly expressed emotions so it’s very very hard to make clear decisions in the heat of the moment. Staff are not well trained and some staff have fallen into the role rather than chosen it.

So it’s not ideal but it’s highly complex.

@Jellycatspyjamas and just one other thing about the Oxford grooming gangs - we know that the gangs started in around 1998 or before, and the investigation (Bullfinch) did not start until 2011 - it took authorities over 13 years to start investigations, which, once started, resulted in convictions and a huge amount of knowledge within a couple of years. How can this possibly be seen as everything possible having been done? It is a shocking timeline. And many commentators who have experience are saying that it is almost certain that we have numerous equivalent situations going on right now not being investigated.

That all makes perfect sense, thanks. It is really useful to hear these comments about training and suitability from someone who is employed in the role.

I wonder what the difference will be under the new laws around restraints. Dread to think, really.

In my setting we are all trained in restraining safely and in a child focused way. We’re not doing police trained types of restraints.

It’s also only used after every other de-escalation techniques has been exhausted and to keep the YP or staff safe. We can also use it to prevent damage to property but prefer not to unless there has been dangerous items thrown about/broken glass.

Every restraint is written up in a detailed report explaining exactly what happened.

Afterwards there will be a debrief and steps are taken to restore relationships.

I didn’t go into this job to be restraining young people but I have been in situations where it was clearly needed.

@itsjusttheradio

what is your evidence that the majority of children in care experience considerable neglect whilst in care?

We had two open in our road last year, within 4 doors of each other. A big chunk of the street did object and the council rejected the application but used the wrong legislation and so the company went to the Planning Inspectorate who overturned the rejection. The company who bought the two houses didn't do their homework as there's a supported living house for adults bang in the middle of the two homes. It's a lot in one residential street.

It's 2 kids at a time with 2 staff on duty at all times.They have made an effort to make the houses look like normal family homes from the outside so you'd never know they weren't.

Sorry. Misread your post. Ignore this…It’s fact. It isn’t rocket science. Kids don’t get taken into care in a context where their needs are being met adequately.

However being in care can be neglectful. Despite all the checks and balances it’s not perfect and falls short of ‘good enough’ often. I’ve seen the local authority make some really damaging decisions for kids that I’ve had to fight tooth and nail against, that if a birth parent had done it then it would be listed as evidence of their inability to parent.

@Jellycatspyjamas I’m from a very middle class family, nice parents but my Mum especially was very hands off. They both worked FT. Mum absolutely HAD to watch the soaps (Emmerdale, Coro, Eastenders) there was no compromise to that. So you can imagine that there wasn’t much time left for actual parenting or connecting after our day together.

She basically handed me on a plate to an abuser - he was in his 40’s, me 13 and he lured me in via a hobby. I used to travel about with him. Stay with him entire days until late. I was even supposed to travel abroad with him - but police intervened because of previous convictions and a well meaning onlooker who informed the police of the company this man was keeping and she felt it was strange - knowing nothing of his previous convictions, when I look back I think how insane they were. My mum was definitely motivated by an easy life. She never wanted to get involved in taking me to my hobby, never watched.

Anyway - I digress but there’s lots of reasons, not all abuse and neglect, sometimes damn right lazy, selfish parenting.

Friend of mine got one of these opposite to her.

usually just 1 or 2 children, but a lot of disturbance and nuisance. Not the sort of thing you’d put up with in a “normal family house “ without reporting to council and trying to get ASBO in place.

1. children climbing out onto flat roof and throwing stuff into front garden,road, including hitting cars (parked and moving fgs)
2. staff literally shouting and swearing back at kids who are shouting and swearing. This is major concern , these staff seems very young in some cases, clearly not equipped to being in house all shift with a disturbed youngster. I’ve witnessed it twice as pulling up, and vthey don’t stop … friend witnessed it a lot and eventually called police
3. dustbins and rubbish overflowing in front drive, blowin* down road becuase staff can’t be bothered to ensure bin lids on well or even pushing bins closed when they randomly sling stuff in. Other rubbish piled up in drive.
4. staff parking cars inconsideratably- across other homes driveways, “only be a minute” on corner of road blocking visibility and access . They don’t use the drive. Thst might be becuas3 they don’t want damage to their own cars 🤷🏼‍♀️
5. police are called at least once per month- often blue lighting and sometimes at night.
6. Neighbours has been sworn at by kids staying- ok, accept pec they may be disturbed, but she has had her GC with her getting out their own car when a kid has leaned out window and hurled abusive language and swearing at them- that’d be seen as threatening behaviour by an adult.

yea, agreed the situation is appalling for the kids, disgusting that it’s private and for profit, but more and more of these are springing up in small quiet residential roads and no allowance is being made for reality that it is very norticable in an otherwsoe quiet residential street.

in my opinion, the old model was larger houses, big grounds, set back for, road in large areas so that impact would be minimal and kids could have a lot of space. Squeezing kids into small houses, and in my friend# case, in a house with a tiny back yard, fgs , is just a recipe for upset and nuisance. The fact they opened this in a house with a small yard- not surprising kids are climbing into roofs and shouting out windows- kids need space to let of steam , and I imagine these kids more than most. They also don’t care that staff themselves are inconsiderate - they don’t live in street and don’t care. They come for their 8-12 hours then go home.

my friends house was on market for 12 months. Lots of viewing and positive comments. 2 people dropped out early in sale process, with no explanation, and no other offers. People pick up on nuisance. She’s taken her house off market and doesn’t know if she’ll ever be able to sell. She needs to move to bungalow as her husband is finding stairs hard.

OP, don’t just accept to be “fair, kind” or whatever. Learn about impact of other homes this company owns OP. Do some research. It is a disgrace better facilities are not being used- cost cutting, though a seperately house for 1 or 2 kids seem bloody expensive way to run…but apparently it’s the trend to give kids in care a taste of family life. Except it’s not…carers come and go, and then swear and shout back at them 😡
.

@OnlyThickBeans

It's interesting to me that behaviour by the middle classes regarded as lazy parenting, in working class or poorer people is seen as neglect.

Personally I would regard what you describe as neglect. I'm sorry that your parents didn't do better for you

@Ted27 maybe. When she found out he was a convicted pedophile she just shouted snd screamed at me asking if I’d had sex with him. Of course I said no. She went on and on that she thought he was gay. When she eventually found out I had been abused she was equally as cross with me. Which wasn’t a great reaction tbh. She told me not to tell anyone which I think was to protect her, not me.

She has never been that emotionally available. I don’t think to think my Dad neglected me but it’s really stupid now I think about it.

@OnlyThickBeans

So your mum failed to protect you from an abuser, blamed you for being abused and covered up a criminal offence.
That's gross neglect, and a total failure of her role as your mum
If your dad knew that he also neglected you, failed to protect you and covered it up
I'm so sorry this happened to you and hope you have support in real life
Best wishes

If you let me know why you are asking then it will be easier to find the right information for you. Are you asking from a professional point of view, ie your work involves some sort of involvement with looked after children, or from a personal point of view, ie you are just intersted?

I think that if you read this thread carefully then I think it gives some insights for all who have eyes to see - where you have significant problems in relation to looked after children, where you know that the homes are run for profit with underpaid and often inadequate staff and inadequate training and there is a lack of funding and training for social care staff, it is going to be a logical conclusion that you will have serious neglect. If you look at outcomes and testimonies, you will also get more clues.

I am surprised at your question, to be perfectly honest.